The Early Byzantine Christian Church: An Archaeological Re-assessment of Forty-Seven Early Byzantine Basilical Church Excavations Primarily in Israel ... Context (Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies) [New ed.] 9783034317092, 9783035305814, 3034317093

Citation preview

Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies

Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies

www.peterlang.com

The Early Byzantine Christian Church

Bernard Mulholland graduated with a PhD in History from the School of History and Anthropology at Queen’s University, Belfast after having enrolled in its Institute of Byzantine Studies. He has delivered research papers based upon his thesis at the annual Oxford University Byzantine Society International Graduate Conference in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. He is a member of the Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Sciences and the Council for British Archaeology.

9 Bernard Mulholland

The observation that domestic artefacts are often recovered during church excavations led to an archaeological re-assessment of forty-seven Early Byzantine basilical church excavations and their historical, gender and liturgical context. The excavations were restricted to the three most common basilical church plans to allow for like-for-like analysis between sites that share the same plan: monoapsidal, inscribed and triapsidal. These sites were later found to have two distinct sanctuary configurations, namely a Π-shaped sanctuary in front of the apse, or else a sanctuary that extended across both side aisles that often formed a characteristic T-shaped layout. Further analysis indicated that Π-shaped sanctuaries are found in two church plans: firstly a protruding monoapsidal plan that characteristically has a major entrance located to either side of the apse, which is also referred to as a ‘Constantinopolitan’ church plan; and secondly in the inscribed plan, which is also referred to as a ‘Syrian’ church plan. The T-shaped layout is characteristic of the triapsidal plan, but can also occur in a monoapsidal plan, and this is referred to as a ‘Roman’ church plan. Detailed analysis of inscriptions and patterns of artefactual deposition also revealed the probable location of the diakonikon where the rite of prothesis took place.

Bernard Mulholland

The Early Byzantine Christian Church An Archaeological Re-assessment of Forty-Seven Early Byzantine Basilical Church Excavations Primarily in Israel and Jordan, and their Historical and Liturgical Context

9

Peter Lang

The Early Byzantine Christian Church

Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies Vol. 9 Edited by Andrew Louth and David Ricks

PETER LANG

Oxford • Bern • Berlin • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Wien

Bernard Mulholland

The Early Byzantine Christian Church An Archaeological Re-assessment of Forty-Seven Early Byzantine Basilical Church Excavations Primarily in Israel and Jordan, and their Historical and Liturgical Context

PETER LANG

Oxford • Bern • Berlin • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Wien

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche National­biblio­ grafie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Control Number: 2013957110

ISSN 1661-1187 ISBN 978-3-0343-1709-2 (print) ISBN 978-3-0353-0581-4 (eBook) © Peter Lang AG, International Academic Publishers, Bern 2014 Hochfeldstrasse 32, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland [email protected], www.peterlang.com, www.peterlang.net All rights reserved. All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed. Printed in Germany

Sixty years after the death of  St. Patrick, Columcille uncovered Patrick’s tomb, and placed the Saint’s relics in a shrine. Patrick’s tomb was also found to contain three reliquaries containing the Saint’s cup, the Gospel of  the Angel, and the ‘Bell of  the Will.’ Columcille distributed the cup to Co. Down, the Bell to Co. Armagh, and he kept the Gospel for himself. Later these three holy relics were each given over to the protection of  hereditary ‘keepers.’ The Mulholland sept (with some assistance from the Mallons) are the hereditary keepers of  the Bell of  St. Patrick, otherwise known as the ‘Bell of  the Will.’  * Later, in A.D. 1091–1105 a new shrine was crafted for the Bell of  the Will with a name inscribed upon each of its four sides: Domhnall O’Lachlainn, King of  Ireland (died A.D. 1121); Domnhall, heir to the abbacy of  St. Patrick; keeper Chatholan O’Maelchallon (Mulholland); and also artificer Cudulig O’Immainen of  Co. Cork who crafted the reliquary. Today this shrine of  the Bell of  St. Patrick resides in the National Museum of  Ireland. It has been a rare privilege for me to research the Early Byzantine Christian Church at a time which coincides with the origin myth of  the Mulholland sept. This book is dedicated to the Mulholland sept, and to their friends and allies.

*

Milligan (1903), 46–57.

Contents

List of  tables

ix

List of  figures

xi

Summary xiii Acknowledgements xv Chapter 1

Domestic artefacts in Early Christian churches

1

Chapter 2

Methodology 13 Chapter 3

What can church sites reveal about liturgy?

43

Chapter 4

A second focus of  liturgical activity

79

Chapter 5

Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches

109

Chapter 6

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes in Early Byzantine basilical churches?

139

viii

Chapter 7

Conclusion 177 Chapter 8

Postscript: the ‘God phenomenon’

185

Bibliography 195 Index 225

List of  tables

Table 2.1. List of  Early Byzantine basilical church sites, arranged geographically and with primary sources

36

Table 2.2. Abandonment processes: Constantinopolitan church plan

38

Table 2.3. Abandonment processes: Syrian church plan

39

Table 2.4. Abandonment processes: Roman church plan

40

Table 2.5. Abandonment processes: indeterminate church plans

41

Table 3.1. Constantinopolitan church plan: apsidal plan and configuration of  the sanctuary

71

Table 3.2. Constantinopolitan churches: side chapel, ambo, synthronon and bishop’s seat

71

Table 3.3. Syrian church plans: apsidal plan and configuration of  the sanctuary 72 Table 3.4. Syrian churches: side chapel, ambo, synthronon and bishop’s seat

73

Table 3.5. Single-aisled Syrian churches with south chapels associated with Syrian plan: south chapel, ambo, synthronon and bishop’s seat

74

Table 3.6. Roman church plans: apsidal plan and configuration of  the sanctuary

75

Table 3.7. Roman churches: side chapel, ambo, synthronon and bishop’s seat

76

Table 4.1. Diakonikon inscriptions

103

Table 4.2. Constantinopolitan church plans

104

Table 4.3. Syrian church plans

104

x

List of tables

Table 4.4. Roman church plans

107

Table 5.1. Whole and fragmentary artefacts: Syrian church plans

130

Table 5.2. Whole and fragmentary artefacts: Roman church plans

133

Table 5.3. Imported pottery (Grey Ware or Constantinopolitan Ware, PRSW, ARSW, CRSW & Coptic RSW. Also Gaza & bag jars are included for Nicopolis ad Istrum) 138 Table 6.1. Constantinopolitan church plans

163

Table 6.2. Syrian church plans

163

Table 6.3. Roman church plans

167

Table 6.4. Indeterminate church plans

171

Table 6.5. Images: Syrian church plans

173

Table 6.6. Images: Roman church plans

174

Table 6.7. Images: indeterminate church plans

175

List of  figures

Figure 2.1. Typical layout of  Early Byzantine monoapsidal basilical church, with common terms used in the text

34

Figure 2.2. Apsidal variation

35

Figure 3.1. Three church plans evident in the catalogue of sites

45

Figure 4.1. Second focus of  liturgical activity located in side chapels

80

Figure 4.2. Location of diakonikon, and also the second focus of  liturgical activity in side chapels

92

Figure 8.1. Roman church plan and diakonikon, with a ‘step-wise’ hierarchal structure

194

Summary

In this book the object of study is institutional behaviour in the Early Byzantine Church in which ritualised activities occur with great frequency. The aim of  the book was to examine a large sample of church sites to determine whether there might be evidence for repeated patterns of artefactual deposition in the archaeological record that could provide evidence for some of  these activities. Chapter 2 establishes the method used, why artefactual evidence is restricted to those artefacts associated with the site when it functioned as a church, and re-arranged into their original context and stratigraphy to allow like-for-like comparative analysis across sites with a similar church plan. The church sites were limited to the three most common basilical forms. However in Chapter 3 it is observed that evidence from post holes for the altar table and chancel screen posts, together with whole or fragmentary liturgical furniture, indicated that there are two distinct internal layouts that can af fect artefactual deposition, i.e. a Π-shaped sanctuary in front of  the apse, and also a T-shaped or bar-shaped sanctuary that extends across each of  the side aisles. This observation led to three new groups of church sites: Constantinopolitan, Syrian and Roman. Detailed analysis of each group revealed further characteristics associated with each group. The same evidence identified a second focus of  liturgical activity located in side chapels which is examined in Chapter 4, and further evidence from five inscriptions indicates that these side chapels functioned as diakonika. The appearance of relatively large quantities of domestic artefacts, including amphorae, is examined in detail in Chapter 5 and in the next chapter the archaeological evidence is scrutinised for any evidence that the sexes were segregated in the Early Byzantine Church. The evidence is summarised in Chapter 7, and further avenues of research discussed in the last chapter.

Acknowledgements

Any work of  this magnitude and complexity has some input from many sources. I should like to thank those who have read the contents and commented upon them. These include Professor Gabriel Cooney, Dr. Ken Dark, Dr. Mark Gardiner, Dr. Helen Gittos, Professor Stephen Hill, Dr. Mark Jackson, Dr. Luke Lavan, Professor Margaret Mullett, Dr. Dion Smythe, and especially Professor Theresa Urbainczyk. I would also like to thank Dr. Eliya Ribak and Dr. Ellen Swift who read and commented upon extracts. I would also like to express my deep gratitude to Professor Andrew Poulter, who made excavation data available to me from the site at Nicopolis ad Istrum. Byzantine Studies is a very complex area of research, and I have also learnt a great deal from fellow members of  the Society for the Promotion of  Byzantine Studies (SPBS), and I should particularly like to thank both Antony Eastmond and Kathleen Maxwell for keeping me informed of  SPBS/BSANA activities. The same must apply to those who attended the Institute of  Byzantine Studies at the Queen’s University in Belfast, either as lecturers or students, particularly Professor Jim Crow, Dr. Robert Jordan and Dr. Dirk Krausmuller. I received invaluable feedback to papers from those who attended the 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 Oxford Byzantine Society postgraduate conferences, the 2007 and 2008 ‘Sailing to Byzantium’ Postgraduate Forum in Byzantine Studies at the Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Trinity College in Dublin, the 41st Spring Symposium of  Byzantine Studies 4th–6th April 2008 in the School of  History, Classics and Archaeology at the University of Edinburgh, and the 2005 and 2007 AHRB Centre for Byzantine Cultural History Graduate Day at the Institute of  Byzantine Studies at Queen’s University in Belfast. I also had the great pleasure of working in Israel with Ken Dark on the Nazareth Project 2009 and with Luke Lavan on the Berlin-Kent Ostia 2010 and 2011 missions in Italy. These periods of  fieldwork proved valuable in refining my thoughts in relation to this book.

xvi Acknowledgements

Professor Marie-Therese Flanagan, Professor Peter Gray, Professor David Hayton and Dr. Anthony Hirst have provided invaluable assistance for which I am grateful. I would also like to thank all the librarians at Queen’s University, and particularly Florence Gray from the interlibrary loan section who has been indispensable. I owe a great debt to the secretaries at the Institute of  Byzantine Studies at Queen’s University, Belfast including Valerie Miller, Shema Mondal, and Joanne Robinson. However special thanks must go to Marie George and Angelina Rotchford who were of immense help to me. At the School of  History and Anthropology I must thank Catherine Boone and Frances Mercer. Lastly, I benefited enormously from grants provided by the DHFETE and DEL, which helped to fund my postgraduate research. On a personal note, I would also like to thank the staf f of  Portadown library and the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) for keeping the light of intellectual inquiry burning. In the same vein I would also like to thank Ken Twyble, Brendan McStravick and family, Sean and Jean McConville, Alf  O’Muiri and his wife and family, Pat McFlynn and his wife, and many others who were very supportive over the years.

Chapter 1

Domestic artefacts in Early Christian churches

Our knowledge of any past civilization is based on records, be they written or monumental […] To the extent that written records become inadequate, monumental or archaeological evidence gains in importance. In this scheme of  things the position of  the Byzantine Empire is rather peculiar. At first glance, the volume of written material it has bequeathed to us appears very considerable. But then what is the nature of  this material? […] these texts have a strange opaque quality; and the more elegant their diction, the more opaque they become […] They give us the external husk of public events; and we look in vain for the underlying realities of  life […] For the historian of  Byzantine civilization the limitations of  this written material have serious implications. The only means of overcoming them lies, I believe, in the study of material remains, in other words archaeology. Alas, very little has been done in this respect.1

There has actually been a substantial amount of archaeological research relating to Byzantine sites, but as Cyril Mango observes archaeologists still have to overcome many of  the limitations of  the written record.2 Much of  this archaeological research has been directed at topographical surveys or individual site excavations, but there has also been some systematic architectural and structural analysis of early Byzantine church sites in respect of  liturgy.

1 2

See Mango (1980), 6–7. The term ‘Byzantine’ is commonly used to refer to the eastern Roman Empire from the time of emperor Constantine through to the sack of  Constantinople (Istanbul) in A.D. 1453. Mango states that the Early Byzantine period began in A.D. 324 with the founding of  the ‘New Rome’ of  Constantinople, and continued until the midseventh century. However my own catalogue of sites extends slightly further past the eighth century, and it includes some Italian sites. For an introduction to the subject see Haldon (2000), Angold (2002), or Mango (1980). Also Solovey (1970), 67–76.

2

Chapter 1

This book is in part a response to Mango’s challenge to archaeologists. I argue that much more can be gleaned from the available evidence in published archaeological reports than has previously been assumed.3 I also think that careful examination of data relating to artefacts reveals more information about what activities took place in Early Byzantine basilical churches than has previously been noted. This research is prompted by the appearance of anomalous domestic artefacts in some Early Byzantine churches. The cave church at the monastic site of  Khirbet ed-Deir was thought to be abandoned after a second roof collapse caused by an earthquake.4 This church contained 50% of  the amphorae recovered at the monastery, 33% of  the cooking pots, 25% of  the jugs, 60% of  the basins, 50% of  the Fine Byzantine Ware bowls, and 100% of  the Late Roman Red Ware bowls and lids. When the earthquake occurred this site still functioned as a church and liturgical furniture, including the altar table, was sealed beneath the debris of  the roof collapse as well. The paradox here is that this monastery had a large refectory or dining hall that functioned right up until the earthquake that led to the site being abandoned. The only post-abandonment activity in the archaeological record was an occasional campfire set by nomads.5 At the North Church in Rehovot-in-the-Negev, which is described as a ‘pilgrim church,’ there is also domestic pottery recovered in the church, and yet there is also thought to be a refectory in the long room along the south side of  the atrium.6 No satisfactory explanation is provided to explain the presence of domestic pottery in either church when there was a functioning refectory at both sites. 3

4 5 6

In this I favour Miljenko Jurković’s approach. Jurković argues that: ‘After all, one of  the most intriguing aspects of research, apart from excavations, is the reevaluation of existing documentation. This sometimes rather tedious job becomes, in this case, real detective work. Searches for documents scattered in several countries, in countless archives, and in several languages, turns into a fascinating inquiry into the nature of past research, one that leads to a new understanding of  the monument itself.’ See Jurković (2001), 8. See Hirschfeld (1999), 45 and 49. Also Hirschfeld (1993), 244–259, and Hirschfeld and Birger (1986), 276–284. See Hirschfeld (1999), 7, but particularly 155. See Tsafrir (1988), 22. Also Tsafrir (1993), 294–302.

Domestic artefacts in Early Christian churches

3

These sites appear unusual, but are they? Are these isolated cases, or are there repeated patterns of artefactual deposition at other church sites which could suggest that this deposition of domestic pottery is a common occurrence, and perhaps symptomatic of institutional behaviour in Early Byzantine basilical churches? What possible reason could there be for large quantities of domestic pottery in a functioning church? Institutional behaviour can be exhibited through three types of possible ritualised activity in Early Byzantine basilical churches: (i) liturgical, (ii) paraliturgical, and (iii) non-liturgical. Could these activities account for repeated patterns of deposition of domestic pottery in Early Byzantine basilical churches? (i) Liturgical activity. The most common institutionalised behaviour associated with churches is celebration of  the liturgy in a church sanctuary by the church hierarchy (deacons, priests and bishops). The church sanctuary is commonly an area in front of and including the apse, which is demarcated and defined by a chancel barrier. An integral component of  this liturgical activity is the preparation of  the elements of  bread and wine in the rite of prothesis (rituals of preparation and oblation). There is some uncertainty as to where the rite of prothesis took place, and this is discussed further in the next section. However, if  the rite of prothesis took place somewhere other than the main altar then it would require a separate altar, and it is at least possible that if  the area of  the sanctuary in basilical churches can be identified using whole or fragmentary altar tables and chancel screens, and also post holes for altar table legs and chancel posts, then the same evidence might also be used to identify the sanctified place where the rite of prothesis took place. There is a third location that might play an ancillary role in the performance of  the liturgy, i.e. the diakonikon (the ‘house of  the deacons).7 (ii) Paraliturgical activity. Prior to the celebration of  the liturgy the congregation brought gifts to the church. Among these were gifts of  bread and wine from which a portion was selected for use in the rite of prothesis.

7

The definition of  the diakonikon as the ‘house of  the deacons’ appears in the Introduction to the first book in Cooper and MacLean (1902), 49, footnote 13.

4

Chapter 1

There is some uncertainty as to where these gifts were deposited, or where the rite of prothesis took place during the Early Byzantine period. In this thesis this activity is considered to be ‘paraliturgical activity’ in that it is a necessary precursor to liturgical performance. In a detailed analysis of  Ordo Romanus I, Thomas Mathews argued that in Rome the laity simply brought gifts of wine and bread up to the chancel barrier.8 From these the clergy selected what was required for the liturgy and transferred these directly to the altar table. John F. Romano argues instead that the gifts were placed on altaria (i.e. tables located in the aisles to either side of  the main altar) and elite men and women would transfer the gifts of  bread and wine from these altaria to the of ficiating clergy (in this case the pope and archdeacon).9 During the liturgy Romano thinks the wine was received in amulae (the capacity of an ama is 8.73 litres and too large to be carried by an individual) and the wine was then transferred to the chalice as part of  the preparation, and then poured into a scif fus (a large vessel) used to give the wine to the clergy and faithful.10 He also thinks that water might have been added to the wine from a vessel called a fons. Even though the transfer of a portion of  the gifts straight to the altar table appears crude and devoid of ritual, this explanation might account for the presence of domestic pottery near to the chancel barrier surrounding the church sanctuary. These paraliturgical activities precede the liturgical performance in the church sanctuary and involve the transport, storage and distribution of wine and bread inside the church. Mathews also argued that men and women were segregated in church, i.e. women in the left aisle and men in the right aisle, when facing the apse.11 If  this segregation of  the sexes in Early Byzantine churches can 8

9 10 11

The emperor Justinian I reconquered much of  the Western Roman Empire, and so the inclusion of sites and liturgies from this region is justified at this time. Mathews (1962), 73–95, and Mathews (1971), 156. Also Haldon (2000), 22–32, and map 1. Ordo Romanus I was produced under pope Sergius I (A.D. 687–701). For a detailed analysis see the recent Ph.D. thesis by Romano (2007). Romano (2007), 286. Romano (2007), 288. Mathews (1962), figure 1.

Domestic artefacts in Early Christian churches

5

be confirmed from archaeological evidence, then patterns of artefactual deposition can be cross-referenced to determine whether there is any correlation with either sex. There is another view held by J.W. Crowfoot.12 When analysing church sites in Gerasa, Crowfoot argues that the location and function of  the diakonikon changes over time. First, he notes that the modern usage of  the term ‘diakonikon’ is ‘now generally applied to a sacristy at the east end of  the church where lamps and other properties are kept.’13 However, he observes that the ‘Diakonikon of  the Testamentum is dif ferent both in place and function.’ Furthermore he states that ‘in the time of  the Testamentum it seems that the Diakonikon served also as a Prothesis chapel’ where the elements (the bread and wine) were prepared in the rite of prothesis before being transferred to the church sanctuary in a procession.14 He observes that at Gerasa: ‘All the chapels occupy the position in the church complex indicated in the Testamentum, and in position and appointments they are fitted to serve as a sort of  Prothesis,’ i.e. they have a chancel rail and a sanctuary one step higher than the nave, and in some of  the sanctuaries ‘there were traces of a table corresponding to the altar in a church.’15 However of critical importance is that during the Early Byzantine period Crowfoot argues that the rite of prothesis takes place in the diakonikon, which he observes is located in a side chapel, which is a separate building from the church. Of particular interest here is Crowfoot’s observation that the Propylaea Church at Gerasa has a ‘small circular chamber on the north side of  the atrium which is described in a mosaic inscription on the f loor as the diaconia,’ and the inscription is dated to A.D. 565. Crowfoot speculates that it might have functioned either as a place of commemoration or ‘a 12 13

14 15

See the section on ‘The diakonikon.’ Crowfoot (1938), 177–179. If  Crowfoot is correct then the function of  the diakonikon evolves through time, and the location of  the diakonikon changes so that by the Middle Byzantine period the diakonikon is located in one of  the apsidal chambers (where they exist) but no longer hosts the rite of prothesis which by then is conducted in the other apsidal chamber. See Crowfoot (1938), 177. Crowfoot (1938), 177. Crowfoot (1938), 177.

6

Chapter 1

Diakonikon of another type.’16 This circular chamber is identical in plan and dimension to the circular chamber to the northeast of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, and has a similar location, i.e. aligned to the north of  the church.17 This similarity raises the question as to whether the circular chamber at the Hagia Sophia might also have served as a ‘diaconia’ or a form of diakonikon during the sixth century? Mathews has analysed the ‘Byzantine rite’ in the context of  Early Byzantine church architecture in Constantinople.18 At the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (Istanbul) he argued that in the fourth century the circular chamber to the northeast is the skeuophylakion referred to in earlier texts where the sacred vessels were kept. The circular chamber or skeuophylakion was also the starting point for the ‘Entrance of  the Mysteries,’ i.e. ‘the place where the bread and wine for the Eucharist were prepared’ in the rite of prothesis.19 Mathews argued that the clergy transferred the bread and wine for the liturgy from the skeuophylakion to the sanctuary of  the church in the ‘Entrance of  the Mysteries,’ and at the close of  the liturgical service the ‘f labella, patens, chalices, and other sacred vessels [are returned] to the skeuophylakion.’20 Mathews relies heavily upon critical analysis of 

16 17

Crowfoot (1938), 178, and footnote 11. For the ‘diaconia’ at the Propylaea Church in Gerasa see Kraeling (1938), plate XXXV. For the inscription see Welles (1938), 485–486. For the circular chamber or skeuophylakion at Hagia Sophia see Mathews (1971), figure 49. 18 Mathews (1971). For the Byzantine rite see Brightman and Hammond (1896), 307–457. 19 Mathews and Krautheimer associate the circular chamber with the skeuophylakion of  the ‘first H. Sophia, completed only in 360.’ See Mathews (1971), 158–161. See also Krautheimer (1986), 518 and 520. Mathews also argues that both the Hagia Eirēnē and Hagia Theodōros Sphōrakios also had a skeuophylakion located north of  the church. Mathews (1971), 13, 158, and 161, and also figure 2 and 49. See also Migne (1857), 114 and 1188. 20 Mathews (1971), 157 and 159. Mathews thinks that in churches with a north Syrian church plan there is a chapel located to the right of  the apse and to the right of  the entrance, and in the Syrian rite the ‘whole ceremony of presenting the gifts took place within the church itself.’

Domestic artefacts in Early Christian churches

7

textual evidence in support of  his argument, but is there any archaeological evidence? It should be noted here that Richard Krautheimer denotes both the ‘skeuophylakion’ and ‘diaconicon’ as a sacristy, and draws an equivalence between the two terms.21 Krautheimer argues that a pastophory is a room that served as a diakonikon or prothesis and that as a rule f lanked the apse of  the church.22 He ref lects that in Early Christian times the diakonikon (or skeuophylakion) was a sacristy ‘utilized for the reception of  the congregation’s of ferings and serving as archive, vestry, and library; later used only for the latter functions.’23 He thinks the prothesis served ‘for the preparation and storage of  the species of  the Eucharist before Mass’ and to store the Eucharist afterwards.24 Krautheimer appears to provide more than one possible location for the diakonikon and prothesis, i.e. either ‘attached to or enclosed in the church.’25 If  Krautheimer is correct, and the laity brought gifts of  bread and wine to the diakonikon inside the church, then could the deposition of domestic pottery in Early Byzantine basilical churches coincide with the location of  the diakonikon and help to identify its location? What is evident then is that the location of  the diakonikon forms an important component of  the research question. If  Mathews’ analysis of  Ordo Romanus I is correct then the laity brought gifts of  bread and wine to the chancel rail at the end of each aisle and a portion was transferred directly to the altar table in the church sanctuary. Alternatively the laity brought these gifts to the diakonikon, i.e. the house of  the deacons, which might be located either in a room f lanking the apse of  the church, or else in a side chapel. If  Crowfoot’s analysis is correct then the diakonikon and the place of prothesis might be located in the same building, i.e. a separate side chapel located near to the church building.

21 22 23 24 25

See Krautheimer (1986), 69, and 520. See Krautheimer (1986), 298 and 519. See Krautheimer (1986), 520. Krautheimer (1986), 517–521. See also Butler (1903), 88, and Mango in Featherstone (1996), 26, and footnote 45. Also Hill (1996), 23. See Krautheimer (1986), 518 and 520.

8

Chapter 1

It is therefore possible that the deposition of domestic pottery in the archaeological record could coincide with the location of  the diakonikon, either inside churches or else in side chapels that function as diakonika. If  the deposition of domestic pottery did coincide with the location of  the diakonikon this would be interesting, but supporting archaeological evidence for the location of  the diakonikon in the form of, say, mosaic inscriptions would still be required. Also, because Mathews argues that the sexes are segregated in churches during the Early Byzantine period, it is important to examine archaeological evidence to determine, firstly, if  there is any archaeological evidence for the segregation of  the sexes and, secondly, whether there is any correlation between this practice and the deposition of domestic artefacts in churches. (iii) Non-liturgical activity. There are some textual references to nonliturgical activity in churches that also might account for the presence of domestic pottery in churches, which are also considered such as the agape, communal meal or ‘love banquet.’26 Derwas Chitty observes that the hegumen at the fifth-century coenobium of  St. Euthymius took his guests to the inner chamber of  the diakonikon for breakfast after they had viewed the treasures.27 This reference implies the diakonikon was more of a sacristy, a place for keeping sacred vessels and treasures, than as a site of  the rite of prothesis (though of course these two functions are not necessarily mutually exclusive). Both of  these non-liturgical activities could account for the deposition of domestic pottery in the vicinity of churches. Also, Mathews extracts from Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ De Ceremoniis three references to the emperor and patriarch dining together in a number of church sites at dif ferent times.28 There are problems using this tenth-century compilation, involving the identification and dating of earlier texts embedded in the compilation. 26 Shepherd (1961), 33. Also Solovey (1970), 103. 27 Crowfoot (1938), 178, and footnote 9. It should be noted however that Hirschfeld, although he makes reference to Derwas Chitty’s 1920s excavation, makes no mention of a diakonikon at this site. See Hirschfeld (1993), 339–371, and also footnote 1 for a list of  Chitty’s preliminary publications on the excavation. 28 Mathews (1971), 132–133.

Domestic artefacts in Early Christian churches

9

In this book the object of study is institutional behaviour in the Early Byzantine Church in which ritualised activities occur with great frequency. As this book is primarily an archaeological enquiry it utilises published peer-reviewed archaeological reports as a primary resource. Liturgical analysis is limited to determining where the diakonikon might be located inasmuch as this might coincide with the deposition of domestic artefacts in churches or their side chapels, and also to determine from some early liturgical texts what artefacts were used during the liturgical performance.29 In Chapter 2 the method used to interrogate the archaeological evidence is set out. A catalogue of  Early Byzantine basilical church sites was compiled for the thesis upon which this book is based, and also of  the artefacts thought to be deposited when each basilica functioned as a church.30 The church sites are restricted to the three most common basilical plans. This allows like-for-like analysis between basilicas with the same church plans, and specifically for comparative analysis of patterns of artefactual deposition, which is conducted in Chapter 5 and 6. Furthermore, church excavations are limited to those from the Levant. Data regarding abandonment processes have been collated (Table 2.2–2.5). Those sites rapidly abandoned due to fire damage or earthquakes and which have sealed destruction layers tend to feature strongly in later analysis of artefactual deposits in Chapter 5 and 6. In the archaeological record there is also a noticeable switch from Byzantine Christian to Muslim Umayyad material culture in the mid-seventh century, which is evident in stratigraphic sequences at many sites. In Chapter 3 there is a re-evaluation of  the three most common basilical church plans. This book challenges the assumption that church sites can be treated as one homogenous group. As the catalogue of  Early Byzantine basilical church sites was compiled it became apparent that there are two common sanctuary layouts: one is bounded by a Π-shaped chancel barrier in front of  the apse, and the other by a T-shaped chancel barrier that extends across both side aisles. As a result of  this re-evaluation, church sites in the

29 For translations of many early liturgies see Brightman and Hammond (1896). 30 Mulholland (2011).

10

Chapter 1

catalogue were placed into four groups: (i) Constantinopolitan, (ii) Syrian, and (iii) Roman, and a fourth indeterminate group that did not appear to match any of  these. This action enabled further observations to be made in regard to defining characteristics for each group. The most important in light of  the research question is that Constantinopolitan and Roman church plans tend to have adjacent north chapels that occur as a separate building, and Syrian church plans an integral south chapel parallel to and accessed from the south aisle (Table 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.7). Furthermore there is archaeological evidence for another second focus of  liturgical activity in many of  these side chapels in the form of  liturgical furniture and a raised bema and in Chapter 4 this evidence is further examined. Chapter 4 considers the second focus of  liturgical activity located in side chapels in all three church plans in light of  this new archaeological evidence. This evidence includes post holes associated with chancel screen posts and altar table legs, as well as the deposition of whole or fragmentary liturgical furniture. If  the rite of prothesis requires an altar table cordoned of f  by a chancel screen, then the same archaeological evidence used to identify the main focus of  liturgical activity in the church can also be used to locate where the rite of prothesis took place. As noted above, many side chapels have evidence for liturgical furniture and a raised bema (see also Table 4.2–4.4). Lastly, there are six inscriptions (Table 4.1) where the Byzantines seem to confirm that these same side chapels are also diakonika, if only in these individual side chapels where they occur. In Chapter 5 the artefactual evidence (Table 5.1–5.3) is examined in respect of  the three common basilical church plans, and in relation to the abandonment processes (Table 2.2–2.5) involved at each site. This book takes cognisance of structural and archaeological features, but the intention here is to examine the available archaeology in more detail to determine whether comparative analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition might be used to determine what activities took place in Early Byzantine basilical churches in the Levant, and where they occurred. In Chapter 6 the available archaeological evidence is examined to determine whether there is any evidence that the sexes were segregated in the Early Byzantine Church. An important question is whether there may be a relationship between segregation of sexes and the deposition of

Domestic artefacts in Early Christian churches

11

domestic pottery in churches. This evidence is collated and analysed and reference also made to other research carried out into the Early Church in the West.31 The available archaeological evidence is presented in Chapter 7, and then finally Chapter 8 addresses some outstanding problems and outlines some areas of  future research that might help to resolve these issues. There are also other areas of research that have suggested themselves during the course of  this research that are discussed brief ly. The style used throughout the book follows the style guide for the Dumbarton Oaks Papers, and the Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations style sheet. This normally requires that the first reference to a book or article be complete, and subsequent references use the author’s last name and a shortened form of  the title. In this book the author’s surname, year of publication (placed in brackets), and the page numbers are used throughout in footnotes for clarity. The title of  the book or article is omitted from footnotes on the basis that they can be readily identified in the bibliography. There is also an index of church sites prior to the bibliography. The catalogue of sites and artefacts are available on a disc at the back of  the original thesis.32

31 32

For example Mathews (1971), 130–137, and Taft (1998), 27–87. Also Laiou (1981), 233–260, and Laiou (1982), 98–103. Mulholland (2011). The disc is PC compatible, and composed using Access.

Chapter 2

Methodology

This book examines whether comparative analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition can be used to determine what institutional activities took place in Early Byzantine basilical churches in the Levant, and where they occurred. There are four main components to this approach: (i) artefacts, (ii) repeated patterns, (iii) Early Byzantine basilical churches, and then (iv) Early Byzantine basilical churches in the Levant. This chapter will consider each of  these in turn to set out how they can be addressed and why. But first, there are a range of research methods that might have been used to approach this question, and the more relevant approaches are considered brief ly.

Overview of  Byzantine archaeology One of  the commonest forms of archaeological investigation is non-invasive topographical survey. This is partly because it is often easier to get a licence for survey and because there is often no expensive post-excavation analysis required from specialist third parties, although the increased use of complex computerised systems and equipment can add to the costs. However perhaps the largest component of archaeological research into the Byzantine Empire is composed of individual site excavations. These place individual church sites under intense scrutiny during excavation, and archaeological reports will often attempt to determine how the site fits into what is known of  the contemporary period from historical records and from other similar sites. Although funding for excavation might be

14

Chapter 2

available, often from a university training budget for student archaeologists, many excavators rapidly move on to another site once their current excavation is completed and it is rare for an excavation to be published in full.1 Even then, it seems doubtful that a description of any individual site could accurately ref lect the complexity of  the Early Byzantine Church when that institution was composed of at least five patriarchates.2 Where large surveys and analyses of church sites do occur, as Mango has noted, they often focus largely on architectural and art historical research methods and approaches. Some surveys opt not to discriminate between the full range of diverse church plans available in the Early Byzantine period. A typical survey might include centrally planned domed churches and crossplanned churches, ambulatory and cave churches, and from single-aisled up to seven-aisled basilicas. The sheer diversity of church plans is readily apparent in Krautheimer’s extensive work encompassing the Byzantine Empire, but this diversity is also ref lected even in more restricted regional surveys and this makes any comparative analysis very dif ficult, if not impossible.3 It 1

2 3

In Britain, for example, Mike Heyworth, director of  the Council for British Archaeology, has recently noted that when excavation reports are eventually published these often take the form of rudimentary technical reports. He observes that ‘Full publication of archaeological work is needed, not just technical reports which fail to analyse and interpret what was found (the infamous “grey literature”). The results of  fieldwork need to be available to researchers, properly archived in a publiclyfunded local museum.’ See Heyworth (2009), 12–19. Haldon (2000), 131–152. Krautheimer (1986). For Greece see Pallas (1977); Caraher (2003); and Mailis (2011). For surveys of  Constantinople see Müller-Wiener (1977); and Dark and Kostenec (2009), 56–68. For Cilicia and Isauria see Hill (1996); and Bayliss (2004). For Pontos and Trabzon see Bryer and Winfield (1985); and also Crow and Bryer (1997), 283– 289. For Lycia in Turkey see Foss (1994), 1–52; Tsuji (1995); and also Asano (1995), 72–78, and (1998), and also (2010); as well as Nakatani (1995), 42–50. For Anatolia see Ramsay and Bell (1909) and (2008). For Cappadocia see Teteriatnikov (1996). On Jordan see Michel (2001). Palestine has several, such as Crowfoot (1941); Bagatti (1962) and (1984), 307–308; Ovadiah (1970) and (1993); Bottini, Di Segni and Alliata (1990); Bottini, Di Segni and Chrupcała (2003); Sodini (1993), 139–184; Tsafrir (1993), 1–16; Painter (1994); Duval (1994), 149–212; and also recent work by Ribak (2007). For regional surveys of  Nubia see Adams (1965), 87–139; and of  Egypt see

Methodology

15

would seem preferable to conduct comparative analysis between sites that share the same, or a similar, ground plan and have common reference points. There is a wide range of  theoretical and general methodological approaches available to archaeologists when addressing these problems.4 For example, Colin Renfrew has broached the concept of an ‘archaeology of religion,’ and Timothy Insoll has also strongly argued for the need to address ‘archaeology of religion’ as opposed to the archaeologists’ recourse to ‘ritual’ as a useful catchall.5 Some tentative steps have been taken towards developing a more defined ‘archaeology of  liturgy’ for Christian archaeology.6 There has also been more specialised research into specific aspects of  this complex subject.7 However these concepts have not yet been developed into a universally acceptable theoretical or methodological approach. Despite these ef forts Luke Lavan noted as recently as 2007 that ‘Early liturgies, and very detailed descriptions of church services are few and far between […] it is still not simple to reconstruct church interiors of  the period.’8

4 5 6

7

8

Butler (1884) and Al Syriany (1990). For Syria see Butler (1903); Lassus (1935) and (1947); Tchalenko (1953–1958); or Malki (1992), and for Armenia see Gandolfo (1982). For Hungary see Gáspár (2002); and for Macedonia and southern Serbia see Hoddinott (1963). For an overview see Renfrew and Bahn (2000). Also Johnson (2004), and Trigger (2005). See Renfrew (1994), 47–54. Also Insoll (2004), and three edited volumes (1999), (2001), and (2004). See for example Mathews (1971); Taft (1980–1981), 45–75, (1997), 1–35, (1998), 53–87 and also (2004); Parker (2001), 273–326; Lavan, Swift and Putzeys (2007); Constantelos (2001), 109–143; and also Wallace (1990), 27–38. See also Gittos (forthcoming). See also Duval (1994), 149–212, and Painter (1994), xvii. For church architecture and liturgy see Xydis (1947), 1–24; Mâle (1960); MacDonald (1968); Sodini and Kolokotsas (1984); Schultz (1986); Mainstone (1988); Ruggieri (1991); Ovadiah (1993), 305–309; Piccirillo (2000), 51–113; and also Ousterhout (1998), 81–120. For liturgical furniture, fixtures and the diakonikon see Michel (2007), 581–606. For the ambo see Jakobs (1987); and Jarry (1963), 147–162. For baptismal fonts see Ben Pechat (1985), and (1989), 165–188, and also (1990), 501–522; Khatchatrian (1962), and (1982); and also Ferguson (2009). For storage space see Fiema (2007), 607–623. For objects see Caseau (2007), 521–579, and 625–654. Lavan (2007), 169–170.

16

Chapter 2

Wider comparative studies are rare, such as between the Negev and Constantinople, or those such as Krautheimer’s that encompass the entire Byzantine Empire. These serve to illustrate that some church plans are common throughout the early Byzantine Empire and transcend modern national boundaries.9 Although there are five regional patriarchates by the Early Byzantine period it is still not apparent whether each has their own unique church plan or whether they all shared the same church plan, or plans.10 Krautheimer’s seminal work reveals the highly complex nature and development of  Early Christian and Byzantine architecture.11 His former graduate student Mathews is distinctive for identifying three simple Early Byzantine church plans, i.e. Constantinopolitan, Syrian, and Roman, from observation of excavated church sites in Rome and also Constantinople that were available to him at that time.12 However, Yoram Tsafrir provides a timely reminder that Mathews’ earlier research is untested beyond the city limits of  Rome and Istanbul. He states that: […] development of  the Christian liturgy also significantly inf luenced the function and design of parts of  the church, although we are as yet unable to distinguish between buildings belonging to dif ferent traditions and sects, for example between the Arian, Nestorian, or Monophysite churches on one hand, and those of  the Orthodox on the other.13

Given that such divisions existed in the Early Byzantine Christian Church it may be productive to examine variations in church plans to see if  there are any observable physical traits that allow some of  them to be assigned into easily recognisable categories.

9 10 11 12 13

Kalantzis (1994); Krautheimer (1986); and also Lavan, Swift and Putzeys (2007). Haldon (2000), 131. Krautheimer (1986). Mathews (1962), 73–95, and also (1971). Tsafrir (1993), 6.

Methodology

17

Research method I earned my first MA in Archaeology in 2001 as a mature student within the School of  Archaeology and Palaeoecology at Queen’s University in Belfast.14 Then I put my training into practice by working professionally as a field archaeologist for two of  the largest commercial archaeological consultancies in Ireland.15 After this I returned to complete a second MA in Byzantine Archaeology and Text in 2004 at the Institute of  Byzantine Studies, which was embedded in the School of  History & Anthropology. This experience revealed some dif ferences in approaches between Irish and Byzantine archaeology. The emphasis in Byzantine archaeology is quite naturally placed upon historical archaeology due to the availability of contemporary written material. Analysis of  Early Byzantine church sites consists largely of architectural analysis as well as liturgical and art historical study, which tends to ref lect the specialist training of  those carrying out the research. As Mango has noted, however, there are considerable problems with this approach. In Irish archaeology there is rather a greater emphasis upon material evidence. There is more emphasis placed upon forensic excavation and scientific recording of sites, artefacts and ecofacts by qualified archaeologists and palaeoecologists, so as to determine stratigraphic sequences and the context in which artefacts are recovered

14

15

Inf luential references were Environmental and heritage service, Excavation standards manual (undated), and also School of  Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast, Excavation manual, 5 ( June 2001). See also Barker (1995), Roskams (2001), and also Adams and Adams (1991). Northern Archaeological Consultancy Ltd. (Unit 33, Farset Enterprise Park, Belfast BT12 7DY) and then Irish Archaeological Consultancy (120b Greenpark Road, Bray, Co. Wicklow). In an interview with Mike Pitts, Jim Leary observes that the ‘older generation can be a bit snif f y about commercial archaeology. And yet, I think that is where the best archaeology is happening now. There are younger archaeologists coming in and doing as many sites in one year as the average archaeologist used to do in a lifetime.’ See Pitts (2011), 66.

18

Chapter 2

to determine what activities occurred and where.16 This scientific method can complement and enrich other research conducted by Byzantinists to determine what activities took place and where through analysis of artefactual deposits in the archaeological record. Research for this book ef fectively married these two approaches. Firstly, Early Byzantine basilical churches were grouped into one of  the three most common church plans. This allowed like-for-like analysis of  find spots for artefacts between basilicas with a common church plan, and also comparative analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition. The reasoning behind this approach is that repeated institutional behaviour involving ritualised activities such as liturgical or paraliturgical activity might also lead to artefacts being deposited in a manner that will show up in the archaeological record in repeated depositional patterns.17 Secondly, historical sources were used to identify a list of possible activities that occur in church and whereabouts. The archaeological evidence was then analysed in relation to the historical evidence. This emphasis upon identifying activity areas is important in a Byzantine context given that many buildings can undergo one or more changes of use through time, and rooms within a building might host more than one activity. At some sites structural alterations accompany a change of use in a building, and this might be all too apparent in architectural plans, such as the transformation of a Roman bath into the ‘North Church’ at Kalenderhane.18 However where change of use is not accompanied by

16

17

18

QUB does not generally follow the single context recording system and individual contexts are not, as a rule, planned on individual sheets of drawing film. See the School of  Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast, Excavation manual, 11 (Belfast, June–July 2010), 25. This method has some similarities with the interdisciplinary approach adopted by the founders of  the Annales School and reinforced through the development of  Economic History. As Burguière notes: ‘To make sense, serial sources require massive data collection. But because they exist in several countries and in fairly standardized form, they more easily lend themselves to a comparative approach.’ See Burguière (2009), 91. Striker and Kuban (1997).

Methodology

19

structural alterations, and in the absence of  historical texts, this might become apparent through analysis of  the artefactual evidence.19 (i) Artefacts Artefacts can help to determine what activities took place in a building, where they took place, and whether more than one activity took place there.20 In terms of  Early Byzantine basilical churches the natural question is whether there is any correlation between the focus of  liturgical performance in the church and archaeological evidence. Is there a relationship between the location of post holes for altar table legs within the church sanctuary and chancel screen post holes which define its boundary, and the deposition of whole or fragmentary liturgical artefacts like altar table legs and also chancel screens and posts? Should this correlation exist then the next question is whether, using exactly the same evidence, there is a second focus of  liturgical activity evident in the archaeological record which might indicate where the rite of prothesis took place as this would also have required an altar table located within a sanctified space for the preparation of  the Eucharist. Crowfoot thinks this rite may have taken place in the diakonikon.21 This method of enquiry required that a catalogue of  Early Byzantine church sites be compiled together with those artefacts thought to be deposited in sealed destruction layers when the basilica still functioned as a church or as it was abandoned.22 Artefacts recovered from other stratigraphic sequences, such as surface finds, are excluded. This is important because

19

For example, Mango’s reference to the church in Melitene being used as a wood store. For Melitene see Mango (1980), 90. 20 See for example Hill (1970), 11–58. Also Moorhouse (1993), and Schif fer (1999), and also Gould and Schif fer (1981). For an example of  the impact of archaeometric analysis see Joyner (2005), 547–562. 21 Crowfoot (1938), 177–179. 22 See Appendix I in Mulholland (2011).

20

Chapter 2

most published catalogues group artefacts together by type, e.g. glass, pottery, marble, coins, etc. irrespective of where they were found on site. With this end in mind, those artefacts in the catalogue thought to be deposited when the basilica functioned as a church have been reassembled into their original context so that it becomes apparent what artefacts were found where, and in association with which other artefacts. Historical evidence indicates that specific artefacts often accompany certain activities, and if  these artefacts are found in association with each other in a defined space or location then this might be an indication that a specific activity took place in this location, e.g. eating and drinking, lighting and storage. This applies particularly to liturgical performance and those activities for which there is some illustrative or textual evidence.23 This interest in activity areas is particularly relevant to Early Byzantine church sites because even a cursory examination of published peer-reviewed archaeologist reports of church sites reveals the presence of domestic wares such as ceramic plates, bowls, jugs, pitchers and amphorae. And as Stephen Moorhouse notes: Pottery and the places where it is found can tell us a great deal about how it was used, and provide information which will help the excavator to understand the function and chronology of  the site.24

Whole or large fragments of  liturgical furniture might be considered as a proxy for the degree to which the site has been subjected to looting, or robbing of walls and architectural elements. This is because valuable marble liturgical furniture might have been more likely to be carried of f in any one of  these secondary activities, and so if  these are still on site then this could indicate that the site has been rapidly abandoned and was relatively undisturbed prior to excavation.25 23 For example monastic typika in Thomas and Hero (2000). 24 Moorhouse (1993), 128. 25 See Schif fer (1995), 64. For ‘primary refuse’ see the McKellar Hypothesis which ‘states that smaller items are more likely to become primary refuse in […] regularly maintained activity areas.’ See Schif fer (1995), 175. For ‘de facto refuse’ see Schif fer (1995), 208. Also Schif fer (1995), 25–34.

Methodology

21

There is a distinct problem with this approach that needs to be highlighted. Published archaeological reports rarely provide detailed plans illustrating the exact find spot for each artefact, and so often it is known only that artefacts are recovered in sealed deposits within a certain room.26 However the presence, or absence, of specific artefacts at certain locations can still be very informative. (ii) Repeated patterns There are a number of reasons to focus upon repeated patterns of artefactual deposition across a large number of sites with similar plans. Firstly, analysis of each individual site has inevitably been conducted by the archaeologists that excavated the sites and there is little to be gained from duplicating their analysis of individual sites. This site analysis is increasingly an integral part of publishing an archaeological report as William Adams so eloquently notes: There is a school of  thought among field archaeologists, prevalent in earlier times and still not entirely extinct, which holds that it’s for us to generate the data, and for our successors of  later generations to interpret it. In theory this represents the quintessence of  Baconian empiricism and Comtean Positivism; points with which I’m not wholly unsympathetic (see Adams and Adams 1991; Adams 1998a, 399–424). But it is a doctrine which, among archaeologists, is far more often honoured in the breach than in the observance, and for good reason. Most of us are apt to feel that, after the toils and tribulations of excavation (which, let’s face it, is not much fun a lot of  the time), we have earned the right to find some meaning in what we have done and found. Otherwise, what have we been but mere collectors, like the dilettanti of an earlier age?27

There is also the benefit defined by Delougaz and Haines who have grasped the importance of underlying repeated patterns in data sets:

26 27

For example at Petra and Nahariya the location of some artefacts is provided within the text or in photographs. See Fiema (2001), 81–82 and figure 101. Also Dauphin (1984), 92, figure 24, and plate IIIa. Adams (2003), 1.

22

Chapter 2 Obviously the relative frequency of sherds does not necessarily provide a precise picture of  the numerical relationships of  the various types of whole vessels. Our numerical record may give an approximate picture, however, and of course the mere presence of certain types at certain levels is often significant. We feel that the keeping and publishing of such numerical records is not superf luous, for, while it may [be] argued that such a record from one campaign on one site is of  limited value by itself, the accumulation of records of  this sort from various excavations over a period of  time is bound to provide significant evidence that could not otherwise be obtained.28

Secondly, the sites being analysed here are Early Byzantine basilical churches that are by their very nature associated with ritualised activities ref lecting institutional behaviour, such as performance of  the liturgy. It is at least possible that repeated ritualised activities might lead to discernible repeated patterns of artefactual deposition.29 There is some evidence for this from LaMotta and Schif fer who note that an Anasazi site in the USA appeared to display a correlation between ‘the location, size, and suite of internal features […] and the treatment of  those rooms at abandonment,’ and they went further: These and other cross-cultural examples suggest a general principle of abandonment: use of an architectural space for ritual activities predisposes that structure to be abandoned in a fashion that dif ferentiates it from other types of structures. The challenge that lies ahead is to explain how linkages and linkage factors established during use condition abandonment activities.30

The authors go on to refer to ethnoarchaeological and cross-cultural research that has a direct relevance for research relating to artefacts recovered during excavations at Byzantine Christian sites, in that it: […] identified important general patterns in the disposal of portable items that had been used in ritual activities […] such items, when broken or worn out (‘ceremonial 28 Delougaz and Haines (1960), 56–59. 29 Examples of ritualised behaviour are evident in monastic typika, such as reading, manual labour, lighting, food preparation and consumption, or care of  the sick and elderly. For example see Fiaccadori (2000), 62 and 64. Also Miller (2000), 79, and also 84–119. 30 LaMotta and Schif fer (2002), 45.

Methodology

23

trash’), tended to be disposed of in ways that distinguished them from domestic trash. Ritually used items were often deposited in areas spatially separate from domestic trash dumps, and tended to be burned, broken, and/or buried at the point of disposal […] the spatial dif ferentiation of ritual disposal facilities can result in the aggregation of ceremonial trash in concentrated deposits, such as that found in Jewish genizahs. Thus, aggregates of objects that follow broadly similar life histories prior to discard (at least in terms of ritual uses) tend to be discarded together physically and/or through similar discard behaviours.

Thirdly, repeated patterns of deposition help to mitigate the ef fects of anomalous one-of f  localised environmental or cultural factors upon deposited artefacts that might af fect, or even distort, artefactual deposition at an individual site.31 In this respect perhaps Schif fer’s most important insight has been his argument that there is rarely an equivalence between systemic or behavioural context and archaeological context, other than perhaps sites such as Pompeii, and that both history and archaeology are subject to cultural formation processes.32 In archaeology these include cultural factors, such as when artefacts are transported from their place of use as refuse. They can also be af fected by non-cultural factors or environmental factors such as where a river bursts its banks and carries of f  light artefacts or where metals, such as iron, rust to leave no visible trace.33 Cultural factors are readily observable in Early Byzantine basilical churches, such as the removal or looting of chancel posts and screens and portable altars, which are implicit from the postholes or recesses where they once stood.34

31 32 33

In a manner suggested by Schif fer. See Schif fer (1995), 64. Schif fer (1995), 201–218. For a brief explanation of  these terms see Schif fer (1977), 13–40. Also Schif fer (1995), 46–54. 34 And even factors such as non-publication or partial publication of site excavations. Lavan et al note the problems associated with curate behaviour and post-abandonment occupation, as does Poulter. See Lavan, Swift and Putzeys (2007), 6. Also Poulter (2007), 685–705.

24

Chapter 2

(iii) Early Byzantine basilical churches The definition of a ‘basilica’ is problematical in that it is described by purists as a ‘building divided into a nave f lanked by two aisles, the former being wider and taller than the latter, with an apse at the end of  the nave.’35 However, there are archaeologists who include examples of single-aisled or chambered structures in this classification.36 The reason for limiting sites to Early Byzantine basilical churches is that like-for-like analysis between church sites with the same contemporary church plan makes it easier to detect evidence from repeated depositional patterns that (a) ref lect repeated institutional activities common to more than one church site, (b) expose those sites where one-of f individual events such as looting, robbing, f looding or earthquakes occur, and (c) these are more likely to share the same plan for the same reasons. I have opted to include only single-aisled and three-aisled Early Byzantine basilicas (figure 2.1) in the catalogue because these basic church plans better facilitate this like-for-like analysis. These churches are often accessed via a forecourt or atrium, and most of  the sites in the catalogue have a portico running around the edge of  the atrium, i.e. a narrow roof supported by the outside wall and an inner row of columns. It is common for the east portico adjacent to the church entrance to be referred to as a ‘narthex’ in archaeological reports even though a narthex is generally

35 36

Curl (2001), 179. Also Cole (2002), 127 and 149. The distinguished Late Roman archaeologist A.G. Poulter entitles the single-aisled church at Nicopolis ad Istrum the ‘Small Basilica.’ Similarly, in the preface to his monograph the Byzantine archaeologist Stephen Hill states that in ‘reality this is a study of  basilicas since the region is remarkable for the fact that its early churches are all basilicas.’ His catalogue includes illustrations of  the single-aisled basilicas of  Church K at Corycus, Church 10 C at Gazipaşa, Karlik, the Cuppola Church at Meryemlik and also Yemişküm, and these single-aisled basilical churches comprise nearly 10% of  Hill’s illustrated plans. Mango also observes that the basilica of  Trier is an ‘imposing single-aisled structure terminating in a semicircular apse.’ See Poulter (1995), (1999), and (2000), 347–358 and also (2007). Also Hill (1996), xxi, and figure 23, 31, 40, 45 and 61. See also Mango (1976), 61.

Methodology

25

described as an enclosed porch at the entrance of a church, and so in the tables this feature is listed as the ‘east portico/narthex.’ In practical terms the single-aisled basilical church is ef fectively a rectangular hall, which forms the nave, with a semicircular appendage called the apse forming one of  the shorter sides. The three-aisled basilical church has an aisle to either side of  the nave. These aisles are separated from the nave by a row of columns that support the clerestory and roof. Each church has an altar that is often located midway along the chord of  the apse, i.e. typically each apse is semicircular in plan and the chord is the straight line joining the ends of  the arc. There is often a raised bema or platform extending forward from the apse into the nave that, together with the area of  the apse, forms the sanctuary, and this sanctified area is cordoned of f  by a chancel screen, supported by upright chancel posts set into the ground. This simple ground plan allows for the range of artefacts recovered in any one of  these areas, such as the north or south aisle or nave, to be compared across all sites with the same ground plan to determine whether there are repeated patterns of artefactual deposition. These may then be analysed to determine whether they might ref lect repeated patterns of ritualised activity or behaviour associated with the Early Byzantine Church. For example, given that there is written evidence that the area of  the church sanctuary is a focus of  liturgical activity then this should be ref lected in repeated patterns of artefactual deposition associated with liturgical performance in this area, such as fragments of  liturgical furniture. This research method should also be capable of  highlighting any other foci of  liturgical activity in the Early Byzantine basilical church or in side chapels. Furthermore, should domestic pottery exhibit repeated patterns of deposition in these churches then the type, quantity and location can be analysed to determine whether this disposition might match activities referred to in historical sources. However, even this simple basilical church plan exhibits many variants that encompasses mono-, bi-, triapsidal, triconch and even opposing apses, and from simple single-aisled churches up to seven-aisled variants.37 There are practical problems involved with including such a diverse array 37

See Balderstone (2007).

26

Chapter 2

of church plans, not least that there needs to be a suf ficient number or sample of each excavated church plan to allow for comparative analysis of artefactual deposits, and time and financial constraints prevented this. Therefore I have chosen to restrict my catalogue of sites (Table 2.1) to the three most common Early Byzantine basilical church plans in the Levant (figure 2.2) as identified some seventy years ago by Crowfoot who notes that there are: ‘three commoner types – (a) the inscribed apse plan, (b) the external apse plan, (c) the triapsidal plan.’38 These are still the most common basilical plans in the Levant and, because they of fer the uniformity of ground plan required for comparative analysis of artefactual data, the catalogue of sites is restricted to these three church plans.39 There are still problems associated with comparative analysis involving these three simple basilical church plans. For instance the basilical church plan with an inscribed apse and a room to either side of it (figure 2.2ii) may have artefactual deposits in each of  these side rooms, but clearly the basilical church plan with protruding apse (figure 2.2i) and the triapsidal church plan (2.2iii) will have no corresponding deposits for comparative analysis because these do not have rooms located to either side of  the apse. For this reason church sites with each of  these three ground plans were first grouped together, and comparative analysis conducted between churches that share each of  the common church plans, i.e. like-for-like analysis between churches that share the same ground plan. (iv) Early Byzantine basilical churches in the Levant Basilical churches are found throughout the territorial range of  the Early Byzantine Empire, but there are sound reasons for wanting to limit the geographical scope of  the thesis that extend beyond the normal constraints acting upon a research student, e.g. such as time, financial and resource limitations. One of  the problems inherent in abandoned sites is subsequent

38 39

He also refers to some of  the more exotic forms. See Crowfoot (1941), 58. These three church plans are also referred to in Tsafrir (1993), 1–16.

Methodology

27

(post-abandonment) squatter occupation, wherein the original inhabitants vacate the building and other occupants move onto the site. It can be dif ficult to dif ferentiate one from the other particularly if  they share the same, or a similar, material culture. The question arises as how to best address this problem. One means of mitigating this problem is to restrict sites to the area of  the Levant, i.e. an area encompassing Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestinian territories and Jordan. From A.D. 634–646 there is a permanent switch from a Byzantine Christian government to that of  the Muslim Umayyad, and this appears to be accompanied by a concomitant switch in material culture as well.40 There is conf licting evidence, however, as to whether Byzantine Christians abandoned the Levant en masse as argued by Walter Kaegi, or whether some church sites continued to function under Muslim Umayyad rule. Kaegi argues that during the Muslim Umayyad invasion the Byzantines ‘never peaceably evacuated Gaza, in the manner that they evacuated certain central and northern Syrian cities and Jerusalem itself.’41 He thinks that many civilians f led from the countryside to the apparent security of walled towns in Palestine and Syria after the battle of Ajnādayn. He further argues that with the Ba’labakk and the Chalkis/Qinnasrīn agreements ‘Muslim strategy allowed those non-Muslims who so wished to evacuate conquered regions, in some cases with movable property […] The evacuation of Greeks from newly conquered areas appears to have been handled with great care by both sides at a number of  locations.’ He states that the truce at Chalkis

40 Some of  the major historical events af fecting the Levant during the Early Byzantine period relate to three invasions: the A.D. 540 incursion by the Persian king Chosroes I to seize Antioch and successive incursions over the next four years, the subsequent Sassanian invasion from A.D. 614–619, and then the Muslim Umayyad occupation from A.D. 634–646 onwards. Haldon (2000), 176–177. Interestingly Burguière argues that research methods employed by the Annales School meant that the ‘historian no longer conceived crisis as an indication of decline or dysfunction but rather as the privileged moment in a system’s operation when an event reveals the structures.’ Burguière (2009), 108. 41 Kaegi (2000), 97, 101, 165 and 175–176.

28

Chapter 2

allowed the Byzantine occupants of  Syria a period of one year to evacuate the territory and they left a wasteland in their wake.42 In contrast Dunscombe Colt observes that although small settlements like Nessana that were dependent upon monasteries and farming were adversely af fected by Umayyad policies towards Christianity and agriculture, he thinks that they gradually ‘withered away rather than have to be abandoned.’43 Colt draws upon an archive of  forty papyri from the post-A.D. 636 conquest Muslim Umayyad period at Nessana to support his argument. These papyri indicate that the fort and town prospered until the late seventh or eighth century, and they detail ‘taxation and compulsory services, military af fairs, private business, farming and personal matters.’44 Of  these, the two earliest papyri attest to the tolerant attitude towards Christians by the Muslim Umayyad rulers, however of  the rest Colt observes that in ‘them we sense immediately the change which came about as a result of  the new [Umayyad] regime instituted by the Moslems and in particular by Mu’awiyah and his successors.’45 More detailed analysis of individual Christian Byzantine sites in the Levant could provide more accurate evidence in regard to Christian Byzantine and Muslim Umayyad relationships during this pivotal period. However, there is archaeological evidence that Byzantine Christian and Muslim Umayyad material cultures are distinctive, and can be identified in excavations. Jodi Magness’ Jerusalem ceramic chronology, which spans A.D. 200–800, dif ferentiates between ‘late Roman,’ ‘Byzantine,’ and also ceramic types from the ‘Umayyad’ or ‘early Islamic’ period that began with the surrender of  Jerusalem in A.D. 638.46 Furthermore, Magness argues that general observations can be made regarding the nature of  the fabric of vessels. For example, the earliest vessels are fired orange or light orange at the surfaces, those of  the fourth to seventh centuries are fired light brown 42 43 44 45

Kaegi (2003), 219 and 244–245. Colt (1962), 23. Colt (1962), 23. See also Kraemer (1958). Colt also observes that a small mosque was installed in the site of  Sbeita in such a way as not to damage the church. See Colt (1962), 22. 46 Magness (1993), 12.

Methodology

29

or orange-brown, and Umayyad or early Islamic vessels from the eighth and ninth century tend to be fired either light yellow or buf f at the surfaces, such as ‘Mefjer’ ware, or are of a coarse dark red or brown ware.47 Sean Kingsley also observes that there is ‘transformation in production methods (shape, fabric and vessel size) experienced in Early Islamic Palestinian bag-shaped LR5 amphorae.’48 This view is shared by Pinhas Delougaz, who argues that while bag jar amphorae continue in use after the Umayyad invasion there is ‘a change in fabric from hard gray to soft drab or buf f [which] is indicative of  Islamic date.’49 At Khirbat al-Karak, Florence Day conducted detailed research into Islamic Glazed Ware that included X-ray dif fraction tests, and also refers to other sites where petrographic analyses was conducted on these wares.50 Furthermore there are church sites with clear stratigraphic evidence for post-abandonment squatter activity during the Umayyad period and these confirm that Byzantine and Umayyad material culture are distinctive.51

47 Magness (1993), 11 and 185. Also Magness (2003). See also Rast (1992), 191–205. 48 Kingsley argues that ‘Whereas Byzantine merchants had optimised amphorae to suit sea trade (short rims were less susceptible to breakage and body ribbing was designed to facilitate rope bindings […]) this trend was reversed in the Umayyad period, indicating a radical shift away from traditional orders of commerce. In particular, rims double in height and body ribbing disappeared: the sign of  functional change away from seaborne trade.’ See Kingsley (2004), 99. 49 Delougaz (1960), 34. 50 Day (1960), 40–48, and footnote 20 and 21. 51 The lower part of  the crypt of  the church site of  Horvat Berachot has undisturbed stratigraphic layers in which the Byzantine mosaic pavement is sealed by red beaten earth, which is in turn overlain by an Early Arab f loor which has seventh–eighth century Arabic inscriptions and pottery. See Tsafrir and Hirschfeld (1979), 291–326. Confirmation of distinctive Umayyad ceramics is found at Khirbat al-Karak where an Arab building was constructed less than 0.20m over the remains of  the f loor of  the church at Khirbat al-Karak. See Haines (1960), 4. At Nessana there is evidence of  Mefjer ware, such as Shape 49, which is described as Byzantine Arab or probably chief ly Arab. Baly’s chronology refers to the Arab period as post-A.D. 636. See Baly (1962), 270–303. Piccirillo notes that the ‘churches at Kh. al-Mukhayyat and in the ‘Uyun Musa Valley were abandoned before the spread of pottery having the typological characteristics labeled “Umayyad”.’ See Piccirillo (1998), 260–261. The church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev has Arabic inscriptions dated to the seventh–eighth

30

Chapter 2

It is conceivable that the clergy and congregation of churches that continued to function under Umayyad rule might begin to use artefacts associated with Umayyad material culture. However none of  the archaeological reports for church sites in the catalogue appear to provide any evidence that might support this conjecture, even though the church at Ostrakine has numismatic evidence that it continued in use until at least the end of  the seventh century, and Nessana survives possibly into the eighth century.52 As noted previously, in the catalogue each archaeological report is examined in close detail to determine whether there is evidence for post-abandonment squatter activity or whether the church continued in use into the Muslim Umayyad period. There is evidence (Table 2.2–2.5) from some other church sites in the catalogue that they continued in use into the Muslim Umayyad period, and a few also have evidence for post-abandonment squatter activity. However this period requires more research, and possibly closer attention to detail provided by forensic excavation techniques. Furthermore, data relating to abandonment processes has been collated (Table 2.2–2.5) in respect to whether the site archaeologist thought there was evidence for a fire or earthquake that coincides with the abandonment of  the church.53 Of  the church sites in the catalogue there is evidence that fourteen churches (29.79%) had sealed destruction layers as a result of a fire, and a further eleven (23.40%) had sealed destruction layers associated with an earthquake. Those sites that are sealed by a layer of  fire damage debris provide most of  the artefacts in the catalogue. A few of  these exhibit signs of some later disturbance, but the evidence appears to indicate that they were rapidly abandoned and as a result the artefacts appear in the archaeological record where they would have been deposited. For example, at Nahariya there is archaeological evidence that the suspended oil lamps

52 53

centuries in the atrium, but no typical Arabic ceramic vessels were found. For the Arabic inscriptions see Nevo (1988), 187–192. See Appendix I in Mulholland (2011). None of  these archaeological reports refer to a fire investigation to determine either the cause of  the fire, its intensity or whereabouts it originated. There are reportedly at least forty dif ferent techniques that can be used to locate the seat of a fire. See for example Ide (2002), 133–158. Also Lyle (2004), 113–126.

Methodology

31

fell onto the mosaic pavement while they were still lit, and there are scorch marks that coincide with the location of each of  the recovered oil lamps.54 Because of these significant advantages the catalogue is largely restricted to the region of  the Levant. However, although some 83% of sites in the catalogue (Table 2.1) are from the region of  the Levant, four sites (8.5%) are included from the Roman See, another three from Bulgaria (6.4%) and one from the Sudan. The reason for the inclusion of  four sites from the Roman See is due to the unexpected presence of  ‘Roman’ church plans in the Levant, as identified by Mathews, and the f luctuating inf luences of  Rome occasionally stretched as far as Croatia and Bulgaria.55 The site of  Old Dongola is interesting because the emperor Justinian and empress Theodora sent competing Christianising missions to Nubia.56 The Levant also has a complex relationship between the various patriarchates, because it lies between the Alexandrian and Antiochene patriarchs, and the Jerusalem patriarchate at various times fell under the inf luence of  the bishops of  both Rome and Constantinople.

Conclusion This chapter set out to identify a suitable method to address the research question. This research question was prompted by the observation that domestic artefacts have been recovered in sealed destruction deposits at the cave church of  Khirbet ed-Deir and the North Church at Rehovot-inthe-Negev in Israel. Is the presence of  these domestic artefacts in churches commonplace, and is their presence indicative of paraliturgical or nonliturgical activities occurring in churches at this time? The question

54 See Dauphin and Edelstein (1984), figure 24. Also figure I.3.248 in Appendix I.3l in Mulholland (2011). 55 Mathews (1962), 73–95. 56 Godlewski (1993), 169–176.

32

Chapter 2

was developed further in light of arguments that the congregation were thought to bring gifts to the diakonikon, and as such a concentration of domestic artefacts in the church might indicate its location, or if  the diakonikon was located in a separate side chapel or parekklesia near to the church building then they might provide evidence for paraliturgical activity in the vicinity of  the parekklesia. Furthermore, the object of study is institutional behaviour in the Early Byzantine Church in which ritualised activities occur with great frequency across more than one church site. This chapter began with a review of current prevailing research methods in Byzantine archaeology. An alternative research method was selected in light of  this review. It involves comparative analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition across sites with a common ground plan and internal layout, which of fers the best prospect of detecting what institutional activities occurred in Early Byzantine basilical churches, where they occurred, and whether there is more than one activity on site. The three most common basilical church plans were identified by Crowfoot and these are used here, i.e. protruding monoapsidal, inscribed apse, and triapsidal. This method involves identifying artefacts thought to be deposited when the basilica functioned as a church or as it was abandoned. These artefacts overwhelmingly come from sealed destruction layers, and from three other sites (Table 2.2–2.5) where the churches appear to be abandoned. Then, where possible, these artefacts were reconstituted into the stratigraphic layer and location in which they were recovered so that they appear in the catalogue (Table 5.1–5.3) together with other artefacts from the same location.57 These church sites were originally limited to those from the Levant, but during the course of  this research some unexpected discoveries led to the catalogue (Table 2.1) being extended to include some sites associated directly and indirectly with the Roman See, and two of  these have documented links to the Roman patriarchate. A number of problems were encountered in compiling the catalogue of church sites. It is incredibly dif ficult to get access to original excavation 57

See also Appendix I in Mulholland (2011).

Methodology

33

material, not least because the site director and the associated experts would understandably like to publish their own material. Many church excavations are either not published at all, or are only partially published. Others fall into the category of  ‘grey literature’ where a brief summary is published. Even where there are published volumes these can be impossible to access through interlibrary loans. Furthermore the artefactual material is often simply ‘cleared’ or thrown out so that a plan of  the church and its mosaic pavements can be drawn. Also, the means of recording artefacts can dif fer depending on which method is used, and single context recording is not commonplace. Given these dif ficulties it has still been possible to identify enough excavated church sites with sealed destruction layers (Table 2.2–2.5) from which artefactual data has been extracted and compiled, and repeated patterns of artefactual deposition have been identified.58 The appendices in the thesis, and upon which this book is based, were intended to form the basis of a future reference work. As such the catalogue has been designed to allow it to be further extended to incorporate other Early Byzantine church sites, and to be extended into the Middle and Late Byzantine periods as well. Furthermore, artefacts from other stratigraphic layers can be added. Where church sites are abandoned, this would facilitate further research questions such as how an abandoned church might be used after it ceases to function as a church, and whether this dif fers from region to region, and how? It would also allow the Byzantine-Umayyad interphase to be interrogated to determine whether the switch in material culture is as clear cut as suggested, and whether those church sites that continued to function into the Umayyad period switched to using Umayyad material culture or chose to retain close links with the Byzantine Empire, or other similar links. Lastly, placing artefacts back into their original relationship with each other in the archaeological record can lead to the development of a behavioural archaeology that incorporates both an archaeology of religion and a more defined archaeology of  liturgy. In Chapter 3 the church sites in the catalogue are grouped together into the three most common basilical church plans. 58

See the database in Mulholland (2011), Appendix II.

34

Chapter 2 Apse

Altar table

Sanctuary, enclosed by the chancel barrier

Nave, located between the two rows of columns

Side aisles Columns Entrances

Eastern portico

Atrium Portico – a roof supported on columns that enclosed the atrium

Figure 2.1. Typical layout of  Early Byzantine monoapsidal basilical church, with common terms used in the text. The eastern portico is often referred to as the narthex in archaeological reports, and by the Middle Byzantine period the columns supporting the eastern portico are replaced by a brick wall to form an enclosed corridor or porch that more accurately ref lects the term.

35

Methodology

(i) Monoapsidal with protruding apse

(ii) Inscribed apse with lateral apsidal rooms

(iii) Triapsidal

Figure 2.2. Apsidal variation: (i) monoapsidal (can be either single-aisled, or threeaisled as illustrated); (ii) inscribed monoapsidal with lateral side rooms; (iii) triapsidal (can be protruding apses or, as illustrated, inscribed).* * For a similar deconstruction of apsidal configurations see Ribak (2007), figure 1, 2 and 3. Also see Crowfoot (1941), 58.

Table 2.1. List of  Early Byzantine basilical church sites, arranged geographically and with primary sources No.

Location

Site

Published excavation reports

Italy 1

Mola di Monte Gelato, South Etruria

Potter (1997)

2

Santa Cornelia, Etruria

Christie and Daniels (1991), 1–209

3

Santa Liberato, Etruria

Christie, Gibson and Ward-Perkins (1991), 313–352

Poreč, or Parentium

Terry and Eaves (2001)

5

Large Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum

Poulter (1995); Strange (1995), 259–267; Butcher (1995), 269– 314; Poulter (1999), 1–53; Falkner (1999), 55–296; Shepherd (1999), 297–378

6

Small Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum

As above

7

Philippopolis (Plovdiv)

Bospachieva (2002), 55–76

8

St. Theodore, Gerasa

Kraeling (1938); Welles (1938), 483–484; Bellinger (1938), 497– 503; Baur (1938), 505–546

9

Synagogue Church, Gerasa

As above

10

Propylaea Church, Gerasa

As above

11

Cathedral at Gerasa

As above

12

St. John the Baptist, St. George and SS. Cosmas and Damianus, Gerasa

As above

13

Bishop Genesius’ Church, Gerasa

As above

14

Procopius Church, Gerasa

As above

15

SS. Peter and Paul, Gerasa

As above

Croatia 4 Bulgaria

Jordan

16

Petra Church

Bikai (2001)

17

Civic Complex Church, Pella of  the Decapolis

Smith and Day (1989)

18

Shavei Zion

Prausnitz (1967); Avi-Yonah (1967), 47–63.

19

North Church or SS. Sergius & Bacchus, Nessana

Colt (1962)

20

Kursi, Gergesa

Tzaferis (1983)

21

Khirbet Ed-Deir

Hirschfeld (1999)

22

Central Church, Herodium

Netzer (1993), 219–232

23

Eastern Church, Herodium

Netzer (1993), 219–232

24

Horvat Berachot

Tsafrir (1993), 207–218

25

Horvat Beit Loya (Khirbet Lehi)

Patrich (1993), 265–272

26

St. Stephen’s, Horvat Be’er-shemca

Gazit (1993), 273–276

27

Ostrakine

Oren (1993), 305–314

28

Central basilica, Ostrakine

Oren (1993), 305–314

29

Coastal basilica, Ostrakine

Oren (1993), 305–314

30

‘Evron

Tzaferis (1987), 36–53

31

Monastery church of  Martyrius

Magen and Talgam (1990), 91–152

32

North Church, Rehovot-in-the-Negev

Tsafrir (1988)

33

Haluza (Elusa) cathedral

Negev (1993), 286–293

34

Horvat Hesheq

Aviam (1990), 351–377, and (1993), 54–65

35

Khirbat al-Karak

Delougaz and Haines (1960)

36

Byzantine Church at Nahariya

Dauphin and Edelstein (1984)

37

Khirbet el-Waziah, Western Galilee

Aviam (2003), 41–59

38

St. Mary’s or South Church, Nessana

Colt (1962)

Israel

No.

Location

Site

Published excavation reports

39

Khirbet el-Beiyûdât

Hizmi (1990), 245–264, and (1993), 155–163

40

Beit ‘Einûn

Magen and Talgam (1990), 275–286

41

Dor

Dauphin (1993), 90–97; Dauphin and Gibson (1994–1995), 9–38

42

Nuseib ‘Uweishîra, Jericho

Netzer (1990), 191–200

43

Maresha (Beit Govrin)

Kloner (1988–89), 125

44

Khirbet el-Shubeika

Syon (2003), 75–82

45

Kissufim

Cohen (1993), 277–282

South Church, El-Ashmunein

Bailey (1991)

Old Church, Old Dongola

Gartkiewicz (1990)

Egypt 46 Sudan 47

Table 2.2. Abandonment processes: Constantinopolitan church plan Site Shavei Zion, Israel St. Theodore, Gerasa, Jordan Synagogue Church, Gerasa, Jordan Propylaea Church, Gerasa, Jordan

Sealed fire destruction layer

Earthquake damage

Continued use into Umayyad period

Yes

Squatter activity or re-use Yes

Yes

Yes, until mid-8th century Yes, post-A.D. 724 See St. Theodore

No

Table 2.3. Abandonment processes: Syrian church plan Site

Sealed fire destruction layer

Cathedral Church, Gerasa, Jordan Large Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgaria

Earthquake damage

Continued use into Umayyad period

Yes

Squatter activity or re-use Two phases of robbing

Yes

Post-Medieval robbing of walls

North Church or SS. Sergius & Bacchus, Nessana, Israel

Yes

Kursi, Gergesa, Israel

Yes

St. John the Baptist, St. George and SS. Cosmas and Damianus, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

Khirbet Ed-Deir, Israel

Yes

Old Church, Old Dongola, Sudan

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Central Church, Herodium, Israel Eastern Church, Herodium, Israel Horvat Berachot, Israel

Yes

Horvat Beit Loya (Khirbet Lehi), Israel

Yes

St. Stephen’s, Horvat Be’ershemca, Israel Ostrakine, Israel

Yes

Yes

Central basilica, Ostrakine, Israel Coastal basilica, Ostrakine, Israel Small Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgaria

Yes

Yes

Monastery church of  Martyrius, Israel

Yes

Yes

Table 2.4. Abandonment processes: Roman church plan

Site

Sealed fire destruction layer

Earthquake damage

Continued use into Umayyad period

Squatter activity or re-use

‘Evron, Israel Mola di Monte Gelato, South Etruria, Italy

Yes

North Church, Rehovot-inthe-Negev, Israel

Yes

Haluza (Elusa) cathedral, Israel Horvat Hesheq, Israel Petra, Jordan

Yes

Khirbat al-Karak, Israel

Yes

Pella of  the Decapolis, Jordan

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Procopius Church, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

Yes

SS. Peter and Paul, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

Yes

Poreč, or Parentium, Croatia

Byzantine Church at Nahariya, Israel

Yes

Yes

Khirbet el-Waziah, Western Galilee, Israel

Yes

Yes

St. Mary’s or South Church, Nessana, Israel

Yes

Santa Cornelia, Etruria, Italy Santa Liberato, Etruria, Italy

Yes Yes

Table 2.5. Abandonment processes: indeterminate church plans Site

Khirbet el-Beiyûdât, Israel

Sealed fire destruction layer

Earthquake damage

Continued use into Umayyad period

Squatter activity or re-use

Yes

Yes

Yes

Beit ‘Einûn, Israel Dor, Israel

Yes

Philippopolis (Plovdiv), Bulgaria

Yes

Nuseib ‘Uweishîra, Jericho, Israel Maresha (Beit Govrin), Israel

Yes

Khirbet el-Shubeika, Israel

Yes

South Church, El-Ashmunein, Egypt Kissufim, Israel Bishop Genesius’ Church, Gerasa, Israel

Yes

Chapter 3

What can church sites reveal about liturgy?

The previous chapter outlined the method used to approach the research question. It was argued that it is possible that institutional activities associated with the Early Byzantine Church could be detected in the archaeological record using comparative analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition across a catalogue of sites with the same basic plan.1 It has been further argued that the basilical church is the best and most appropriate focus of research into comparative analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition. That is, not all basilical churches, but rather the three most common church plans in the Levant (figure 2.2) commonly described as (i) a monoapsidal basilica, (ii) a basilica with an inscribed apse with a room to either side of it, and (iii) a triapsidal basilica.2 These three church plans were initially referred to as Type I, Type II and Type III church plans.3

1 2

3

Where a site archaeologist describes a church as an episcopal, monastic or a pilgrimage church this is noted in the Appendix of  Mulholland (2011). However these distinctions are notoriously dif ficult to distinguish in the archaeological record. Crowfoot (1941), 58. I am also very conscious of  Durkheim’s cautionary statement: ‘First, for the sociologist as for the historian, social facts exist in relationship with the social system to which they belong; hence they cannot be understood apart from it. This is why two facts belonging to two dif ferent societies cannot be fruitfully compared simply because they resemble one another. Those societies must also resemble one another – which is to say that the societies themselves must be varieties of  the same species. The comparative method would be impossible if social types did not exist, and it cannot be usefully applied except within the same type.’ See Durkheim (1995), 91–92. This categorisation has similarities to Patrich’s Type I and Type II. See Patrich (2006), 343.

44

Chapter 3

Archaeological evidence for Early Byzantine basilical church plans In practical terms there are dif ferences between the three most common basilical church plans that have an ef fect upon the deposition of artefacts. For example, only the plan with the inscribed apse (figure 2.2) actually has a room either side of  the apse in which artefacts can be deposited and so these need to be placed into a separate category so that they can be directly compared with other similar sites. Similarly triapsidal churches have side apses where artefacts might be deposited and so these have their own category. Churches with a protruding single apse then constitute a third type because they have neither side apses nor side rooms where artefacts might be deposited. However, as the sites were divided into these three groups it became obvious that there are two further distinct internal liturgical configurations: (i) Π-shaped sanctuary bounded by a chancel barrier, and that extended slightly into the nave, and (ii) a T-shaped chancel barrier that extended across both side aisles and into the nave, and that later evolved to omit the nave extension so as to form a bar-shaped sanctuary that extended across each side aisle. Identifying these two internal configurations has been important because each has implications for the deposition of artefacts within the church building because the chancel barrier bounding the sanctuary demarcates the extent of  the sanctified area within the church. The Π-shaped sanctuary occupies a far smaller space in a church than does the T-shaped sanctuary, and conversely the unsanctified area in the latter occupies a proportionately smaller area than in the former. This af fects those artefacts commonly associated with liturgical furniture and high status marble bowls or plates, which are deposited in the region of  the sanctuary. However in compiling the catalogue it is also apparent that some sites have domestic wares present and it is important to determine whether these were recovered within the sanctuary or outside its parameters, and this is why it is important to take into consideration the configuration of  the church sanctuary when placing sites into groups with a similar church plan.

45

What can church sites reveal about liturgy?

(i) Constantinopolitan

(ii) Syrian

(iii) Roman

Figure 3.1. Three church plans evident in the catalogue of sites. 1 – Constantinopolitan church plan with Π-shaped sanctuary surrounded by chancel barrier, and a major entrance either side of  the apse. 2 – Syrian church plan with Π-shaped sanctuary surrounded by chancel barrier, and a room to either side of  the apse. 3 – Roman church plan with a T-shaped sanctuary that extends across each of  the side aisles and into the nave.* * By the seventh century the nave extension is less common in the Roman church plan, and the sanctuary can be described as bar-shaped. In Italy the monoapsidal church plan is common (see Table 3.3. below). The Constantinopolitan, Syrian and Roman labels are appended to ref lect observations made by Mathews. See Mathews (1962), 73–95. Also Mathews (1971).

Using these observations the church sites within the catalogue (Table 2.1) can be placed (figure 3.1) within three distinct groups, which are labelled here as (i) a Constantinopolitan church plan, (ii) a Syrian church plan, and (iii) a Roman church plan.4

4

When establishing classifications Durkheim advocates identifying a small number of defining characteristics for each. See Durkheim (1982), 110–111.

46

Chapter 3

1. The first group have Π-shaped sanctuaries and have monoapsidal church plans with a protruding apse. They are unusual in that they have a major entrance to either side of  the apse. These characteristics also occur in a Constantinopolitan church plan identified by Mathews. It is the convention in archaeology to name a new discovery after the location where it was first discovered or observed, and so this church plan has been labelled here as a ‘Constantinopolitan church plan.’ Mathews identified some common characteristics, with the notable exception of St. Polyeuktos at Saraçhane, for church plans in Constantinople that he associated with the Byzantine rite.5 He observes that the defining characteristic that set them apart from those of other regions is that they each have a major entrance to either side of  their apse and he argues that this ‘feature alone (i.e., entrances f lanking the apse) distinguishes the Constantinopolitan plan from church planning in many other Early Christian centres.’6 These sites included imperial domed churches, centrally planned and basilical churches. They have a Π-shaped chancel barrier that encloses the sanctuary.7 Mathews notes that almost all the churches had galleries, and we: […] have positive evidence of an atrium of sorts in all twelve of  the churches which have been considered, with the exception of  Beyazit Basilica A where the area in front of  the church was not excavated […] In six of  the churches a narthex is securely known […] In no instance, however, do we find the narthex equipped with auxiliary rooms […].8

Furthermore, he observes that the Hagia Sophia has an exterior north chapel or skeuophylakion, also known as a diakonikon, where the clergy vest prior to transferring the wine and bread for the liturgy to the altar and return to after the liturgy to devest.9 It is also useful to note that Crowfoot observed 5 6 7 8 9

Mathews limited his sites only to the city of  Istanbul (Constantinople). Mathews (1971). Mathews (1971), 105. Mathews (1971), 109. Mathews (1971), 108. Mathews (1971), 178. Also Krautheimer (1986), 520.

What can church sites reveal about liturgy?

47

similarities between some church sites at Gerasa and Constantinople during excavations at the former.10 2. The second group also have Π-shaped sanctuaries. This church plan has an inscribed apse and a room f lanking each side of  the apse. It is commonly referred to as a ‘Syrian’ church plan.11 As noted above it is the convention in archaeology to name a new discovery after the location where it was first discovered or observed, and so this church plan has been labelled here as a ‘Syrian church plan.’12 This distinctive Syrian church plan has been described and classified as a separate group from at least the beginning of  the twentieth century.13 It is useful to note that Mathews also refers to a north Syrian church plan that he associates with the Syrian rite and whose defining characteristic is ‘the triple sanctuary […], whether the side chambers and central apse are f lush with a f lat terminating east wall or the three chambers are articulated on the outside of  the church.’14 However he does include the anomalous triapsidal church of  Qal’at Sim’an in this group.15 The distinctive characteristics of  this group of churches are also noted by Krautheimer who observes that the: […] aversion to Constantinople, shared by the native populations of  the border provinces and their monophysite clergy eventually led to an exchange of architectural ideas among the border populations. The ‘Syrian’ church plan – an apse, semicircular or square, f lanked by lateral chambers – was brought into Egypt […].16 10 11 12

Crowfoot (1938), 169–262, and (1941), 50–51. Butler’s expedition found this church plan to be common to Syria. See Butler (1903). For clarification we can use a direct comparison with contemporary pottery. African Red Slip Ware (ARSW) refers only to a specific type of red slip ware. Not all red slip ware found in Africa is ARSW. Nor is ARSW only found in Africa, but it occurs all around the Mediterranean basin. Similarly the term ‘Syrian church plan’ refers only to those churches that share the same characteristics outlined here, and not to those churches in the modern state of  Syria that have dif ferent church plans and layouts. 13 See Butler (1903), Ramsay and Bell (1909), and also Hill (1996). 14 It is anomalous because it is triapsidal and the chancel barrier extends across both side aisles. See Mathews (1971), 106, 157 and figure 51. 15 Mathews (1971), 106, and figure 51. 16 Krautheimer (1986), 307.

48

Chapter 3

3. The third group have either a T-shaped or bar-shaped sanctuary that extends across both side aisles and these occur primarily in triapsidal church plans, but also in some monoapsidal church plans.17 It was tempting to split this group either into two regional groups, i.e. those from the Levant and those from Italy, or into a group of  triapsidal church plans and another of monoapsidal church plans. However both T-shaped and bar-shaped sanctuaries occur in each church plan, and both monoapsidal and triapsidal church plans occur in each region.18 It was also noted that the nave extension that forms the upright of  the ‘T’ is absent from some later sites, from the seventh century onwards, and possibly introduced as a response to a liturgical innovation. Mathews has identified a Roman church plan that he analysed in respect of  the early Roman liturgy Ordo Romanus I, and its defining characteristic is that ‘the eastern ends of  the aisles generally belong to the chancel area; thus entrances in the eastern end are exceptional,’ i.e. it forms a distinctive T-shaped sanctuary.19 Again, as noted above, it is the convention in archaeology to name a new discovery after the location where it was first discovered or observed, and so this church plan has been labelled here as a ‘Roman church plan.’ Mathews does identify a secretarium near the church entrance where of ficiating clergy would prepare for Mass but he appears to stop short of

17 18

19

Crowfoot states that the ‘west part of  the chancel is the Syrian catastroma, the Greek solea, and the choir or schola cantorum of  the West.’ Crowfoot (1941). The church of  St. Clemente in Rome was possibly also a triapsidal church at one time. Also the triapsidal church at Poreč is in the Roman sphere of inf luence and there are other triapsidal church plans in the West such at the church of  St. Martin at Autun, at Geneva, and also at Novae in Bulgaria. For Autun see Knight (2007), 88 and figure 23. For Geneva see Altet (2002), 62. And for Novae see Parnicki-Pudelko (1983), 241–270. Mathews (1971), 107. See also Mathews (1962), 73–95, and figure 1. In relation to the nave extension, Crowfoot states that the ‘west part of  the chancel is the Syrian catastroma, the Greek solea, and the choir or schola cantorum of  the West.’ See Crowfoot (1941).

What can church sites reveal about liturgy?

49

identifying this with the location of  the diakonikon.20 Instead Mathews thinks that: The early Roman liturgy was unusual in that a distinct place for the preparation of  the gifts [rite of prothesis] did not exist, but the congregation themselves at the beginning of  the Mass of  the Faithful brought of ferings of  bread and wine to the sanctuary barrier at the eastern end of either aisle and presented these to the clergy. From these of ferings a portion was simply selected and placed on the altar for the Eucharistic sacrifice without any accompanying ceremony.21

If  this is the case then there should be archaeological evidence to support this paraliturgical activity, perhaps in the form of domestic wares deposited in the vicinity of  the east end of one or both side aisles. This will be examined in light of evidence from the catalogue (Table 5.1–5.3) in Chapter 5. Once church sites had been placed together into one of  these three categories it was apparent that further observations could be made about each of  these distinctive church plans, and about characteristics that they appear to share (Table 3.1–3.7) with others of  the same group. A fourth group consists of church sites that did not match any of  these three categories and these will be subjected to further research at another time.22 Although perhaps premature, if only because Mathews’ own research was restricted to church sites within the city boundaries of  Rome and Constantinople, for greater clarity overall I have appended the labels (figure 3.1) previously applied to these three distinct church plans by Mathews, i.e. Constantinopolitan, Syrian and Roman, which identify dif ference based on rite used rather than geographical location, as such. (i) Constantinopolitan church plan There are four church sites that meet the criteria for this category, i.e. each has a Π-shaped sanctuary and chancel barrier and also a protruding apse 20 Mathews (1962), 76. 21 Mathews (1971), 156. 22 Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.4.

50

Chapter 3

with a major entrance to either side of it (Table 3.1).23 Once these sites were grouped together it became apparent that there were other shared characteristics (Table 3.2) between some or all of  the sites. Three of  the four sites have a separate exterior north chapel adjacent to the church building. The St. Theodore Church in Gerasa is unusual in having both a separate exterior north and south chapel adjacent to it, but it also has a baptistery attached to the latter that might explain its presence. At the fourth site, i.e. the Synagogue Church, the excavation did not appear to extend beyond the church building and so it is not known whether it has a separate exterior adjacent side chapel. Further research into sites with this Constantinopolitan church plan might reveal further insights into its layout. At three of  the sites there is an ambo located just south of  the main nave entrance to the sanctuary, and at the other site at Shavei Zion there had originally been two lecterns in the sanctuary and only the north lectern was retained during later phases. Of  the four church sites only the Synagogue Church in Gerasa (Table 3.2) has evidence for a synthronon or tiered seat around the apse for the clergy, and none have evidence for a bishop’s seat. These observations suggest that the list of characteristics common to Constantinopolitan church sites might usefully be extended. Defining characteristics of  this church plan can include: 1. Π-shaped sanctuary and chancel barrier. 2. Protruding monoapsidal church plan. 3. Entrances f lanking the apse. 4. Multiple entrances on all sides. 5. Ambo located south or to the ‘epistle side’ of  the nave entrance to the sanctuary. 6. Separate exterior north chapel adjacent to the church.

23

Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.1.

What can church sites reveal about liturgy?

51

Artefactual evidence at these sites (Table 4.2) indicates that there are two foci of  liturgical activity.24 Firstly, whole and fragmentary artefacts from liturgical furniture are found primarily in the area of  the sanctuary, and this provides supporting evidence that postholes for altar table legs and chancel screen posts demarcate the sanctuary as a focus for liturgical performance in the church. A second focus for liturgical performance is indicated by the same evidence of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition, i.e. of whole and fragmentary artefacts from liturgical furniture in association with postholes for altar table legs and chancel screen posts. This secondary focus of  liturgical activity is located in separate adjacent north chapels or parekklesiai at three sites, which suggest that liturgical activity took place in parekklesiai, possibly the rite of prothesis, and therefore the donation of gifts of  bread and wine by the congregation might have took place outside the church in these separate side chapels. For example (i) the site of  Shavei Zion has a chapel just north of  the church and this has postholes for an altar table; (ii) St. Theodore has a north chapel with postholes for a chancel barrier, and also a chapel to the south with postholes for a chancel barrier; and (iii) the Propylaea Church has a circular chapel along the north perimeter of  the atrium that is almost identical in size and plan to the skeuophylakion or diakonikon at the Hagia Sophia, and it has an inscription which identifies it as the diakonia (place or ‘house’ of  the deacons).25 More importantly, there is no competing archaeological evidence in any of  the sites for a secondary focus of  liturgical performance inside the church building where the rite of prothesis might have occurred. Evidence from these four church sites would appear to support research conducted by Mathews almost forty years ago into Early Byzantine churches in Constantinople.26 They have in common a major entrance to either side of  the apse, which Mathews identifies as the most important defining characteristic, and three of  the four sites have a separate north chapel.

24 See also Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.1. 25 Inscription no. 331. 26 Mathews (1971).

52

Chapter 3

The main dif ferences are that six of  the churches in Constantinople have a narthex, whereas none of  the basilicas with the Constantinopolitan church plan in the catalogue have a narthex.27 Three do have porticos, i.e. a narrow roof running around the internal perimeter of  the atrium with its outer edge resting on the wall and the inner edge resting on columns, and the Synagogue Church has a porch. Similarly, although Mathews also found that almost all the churches he examined had galleries, none of  the four basilical churches with a Constantinopolitan plan appear to have these.28 However Mathews includes domed and centrally-planned churches in his research and this may explain why they have galleries and a narthex. Crucially, he argues that the ‘triple sanctuary that has traditionally been associated with the origin of  Byzantine architecture does not occur in pre-iconoclastic Constantinople.’29 Crowfoot makes a similar argument in relation to churches with this plan at Gerasa and similar churches in Constantinople.30 He also notes the similarity between the churches of  St. Theodore, the Prophets and the Synagogue church in Gerasa to that of  St. John Stoudios at Constantinople and also the Hagia Sophia and SS. Sergios and Bacchos where there were entrances f lanking the apse instead of side chambers. It is interesting that Mathews has argued that the skeuophylakion or diakonikon at the Hagia Sophia is located in a circular structure to the north of  the church.31 Mathews thought this is where the clergy vest prior to transferring the wine and bread for the liturgy to the altar in the Hagia Sophia and return to after the liturgy to devest.32 He argues that the: […] Early Byzantine church plan […] did not include a diaconicon for vesting and devesting; once the liturgy was over, the celebrant had nowhere to go except to retrace his steps back out of  the church.33 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

See Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.1. Mathews (1971), 108. Mathews (1971), 156. Crowfoot (1938), 181, and footnote 25. Mathews (1971), 13, 38 and figure 49. See also Migne (1857), 114 and 1188. Mathews (1971), 178 and figure 49. Mathews (1971), 173.

What can church sites reveal about liturgy?

53

As noted previously, there is a similar circular side chapel located along the north side of  the atrium at the Propylaea Church in Gerasa with an inscription that describes it as a diakonia, and three of  the four Constantinopolitan churches do have north chapels that might have fulfilled this function. If the diakonikon is indeed located in a circular side chapel at the Hagia Sophia, and the clergy process from and to this side chapel during performance of  the liturgy, then this ritualised activity could be replicated at other Early Byzantine basilical churches. (ii) Syrian church plan There is a remarkable homogeneity between the fifteen church sites with this plan in the catalogue (Table 3.3–3.5).34 These sites have in common a Π-shaped sanctuary and chancel barrier, but in these churches there is an inscribed apse that has a room to either side of it.35 These defining characteristics are commonly referred to as a Syrian church plan, and once sites from the catalogue were grouped together it was noted that they often have other characteristics in common.36 The defining characteristics of  this church plan can include: 1. Π-shaped sanctuary and chancel barrier. 2. Inscribed monoapsidal church plan. 3. A room to either side of  the apse. 4. Entrance usually from the west. 5. Ambo predominantly on the south or the ‘epistle side’ of nave entrance to sanctuary. 6. Where present the baptistery is located in the room south of  the apse or in the vicinity of  the south aisle. 7. Separate south chapel parallel with and accessed from the south aisle. 34 See Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.2. 35 It is notable that at the Cathedral Church in Gerasa the Π-shaped chancel barrier is extended across each of  the side aisles in a later construction phase. 36 See Butler (1903). Also Mathews (1971), 106 and 120.

54

Chapter 3

Most of  these churches have their main entrance from the west, but the Old Church at Old Dongola, and also Khirbet el-Beiyûdât from the fourth indeterminate group, have south entrances and these may be indicative of an Alexandrian or Nubian church plan.37 Six of  the sites have evidence for an ambo (Table 3.4) and three of  these are located to the south of  the nave entrance into the sanctuary. Two have the ambo located to the north of  the nave entrance to the sanctuary, but one of  these occurs at Nessana where Colt cautions in his foreword that where architectural evidence is lacking he has drawn analogies from Sbeita to compensate.38 The Large Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum dif fers in that it has an ambo in the middle of  the nave aligned along the east-west axis of  the church. Three of  these sites have evidence for a synthronon or tiered seating for the clergy in the apse, and the North Church at Nessana has evidence for a bishop’s seat in the apse. Where the walls survive to a suf ficient height it is apparent that each room to either side of  the apse has a niche at chest height set into the wall closest to the apse. Ten Syrian churches (66%) have baptismal fonts. Where baptismal fonts occur they are located (a) within the extended church building and (b) are located in the south of  the building. Of  these, five of  the baptismal fonts are located in the room to the south of  the apse (Kursi, Old Dongola, Central Church at Herodium, Ostrakine, and SS. Cosmas & Damianus), two of f  the south aisle (Horvat Beit Loya, St. Stephen’s at Horvat Be’ershemca), one in the south chapel (Eastern Church at Herodium) and at the cave church of  Khirbet ed-Deir the baptistery is located southeast of  the church. The sole exception is the North Church at Nessana where the font was built into the east portico/narthex.39 The location of  these baptismal

37 38

39

See Adams (1965), 87–139. Colt notes in the foreword that ‘concerning the architectural restorations: while there is little actual proof at Auja for some of  them, analogies have been drawn from similar well preserved remains at Sbeita, where definite proof was not lacking.’ See Colt (1962). The location of  this font is similar to the fountain in Baldachin I at Kalenderhane in Constantinople. The fountain was thought to be suppressed when the Bema Church

What can church sites reveal about liturgy?

55

fonts suggests that the candidate for baptism must enter the church building before being baptised. Whole and fragmentary artefacts from liturgical furniture are found primarily in the area of  the sanctuary, and this provides useful supporting evidence that postholes for altar table legs and chancel screen posts demarcate the sanctuary out as a focus for liturgical performance in the church.40 A second focus for liturgical performance is indicated using the same evidence of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition, i.e. of whole and fragmentary artefacts from liturgical furniture in association with postholes for altar table legs and chancel screen posts. This provides evidence for a secondary focus of  liturgical activity such as the rite of prothesis in separate side chapels or parekklesiai parallel with and accessed from the south aisle. Six of  the fifteen sites have a south chapel, but the North Church at Nessana goes against the trend again and has a separate north chapel, and so does Horvat Beit Loya. There is a possible reason for these two churches going against the trend, i.e. they may be undiagnosed Syrian-to-Roman church conversions, which are discussed in the next section on Roman church plans. At Kursi an inscription (Table 4.1) in the room south of  the apse provides a construction date of  A.D. 585 for the Phase II baptistery here, and also for the contemporary south chapel, which is parallel with and accessed from the south aisle.41 This date coincides with the dissolution of  the Ghassanid phylarchy in A.D. 584 by emperor Maurice shortly after the death of  Jacob Baradaeus in A.D. 578. Mango credits Baradaeus with conducting many of  the ordinations that helped to establish the Monophysite or Jacobite Church.42 Because of  the apparent correlation between this church plan and a south chapel (Table 3.5), both of  the single-aisled monoapsidal churches at the monastery of  Martyrius and the Small Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum have been placed in this group as well.

was constructed. See Chapter III.14 in Striker and Kuban (1997), 88–95 and figure 58–59. 40 Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.2. 41 For the inscription at Kursi see Tzaferis (1983), and (1993), 77–79. 42 Mango (1980), 96. Also Angold (2002), 40.

56

Chapter 3

The available evidence does indicate that this group of churches dif fers considerably from the other two groups in both their planning and how they are used. Of  the three basilical church plans they are the only one to have a room to either side of  the apse and eight of  these church sites (at six of  the original church sites and the two single-aisled monoapsidal church sites just discussed) have a separate south chapel, whereas a separate north chapel is common to the other two church plans. On balance this evidence appears to support observations made by Mathews in respect of a north Syrian church plan and the Syrian rite. Through grouping these church sites together further observations have been made that enhance our understanding of  the Syrian church plan, but there are notable dif ferences to Mathews’ original observations.43 None of  the churches with this plan have a semicircular bema or raised platform in the nave that Mathews associates with it, and indeed his own illustrations of  this church plan also omit this architectural feature.44 Also of note is that Mathews places the triapsidal church of  Qal’at Sim’an among north Syrian sanctuary plans. In my own catalogue of sites (Table 3.6) these triapsidal basilical church plans are usually associated with T-shaped sanctuaries that extend across each of  the side aisles, and which Mathews links to the Roman church plan that he associates with Ordo Romanus I.45 (iii) Roman church plan There are sixteen Early Byzantine churches (Table 3.6–3.7) with this plan. At these sites the apsidal end of  the church is cordoned of f  by the chancel barrier, and in three-aisled basilical churches the chancel barrier extends

43 Mathews (1971). 44 Mathews (1971), 120, 106 and figure 51. 45 See Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.3. Although note that the Cathedral Church in Gerasa (Appendix I.2a) does share this feature, and it might reward further research. See Kraeling (1960), Plan XXXI.

What can church sites reveal about liturgy?

57

across both side aisles.46 The sanctuary, enclosed by the chancel barrier, occupies far more space in these churches, particularly at the twelve sites (75%) where the chancel barrier extends forward into the nave (figure 3.1) to form a T-shaped sanctuary and chancel barrier. Of  the other four sites, three have bar-shaped sanctuaries bounded by chancel barriers, and at ‘Evron it is dif ficult to determine its configuration. Of particular note is that thirteen (81%) of  these churches are triapsidal and all but two (the Procopius Church and Mola di Monte Gelato) have T-shaped sanctuaries. Three of  the sites are monoapsidal and of  these one has a T-shaped sanctuary and the others are bar-shaped. Again these sites exhibit considerable homogeneity (Table 3.6) and once these sites were assembled together in the catalogue it quickly became apparent that they often share other common characteristics. Defining characteristics of  this church plan can include: 1. T-shaped sanctuary extending into the nave, and also across the east end of each side aisle. At the start of  the seventh century the nave extension is less common, which results in a bar-shaped sanctuary. 2. Triapsidal church plan, usually inscribed, and the Italian sites are often monoapsidal. 3. Side altars often present in both monoapsidal and triapsidal configurations. 4. Evidence for multiple relics or reliquaries in many sites. 5. Ambo is generally the ‘gospel side’ or north of nave entrance to sanctuary. 6. Baptistery located outside the church and, where it exists, usually of f  the atrium or in the north chapel. 7. Possible high status imperial association through marble liturgical furniture and imported finewares similar to Marzamemi assemblage.

46 Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.3.

58

Chapter 3

8. Christian decorative elements on chancel screens can include fourand six-armed ‘wreathed cross’ f lanked by Latin crosses.47 9. Separate north chapel. As with the other two church plans the location and extent of  the sanctuary is identified using whole and fragmentary artefacts from liturgical furniture.48 These are recovered primarily in the area of  the triple apse and extend across the ends of  both side aisles, and this provides useful supporting evidence that postholes in the sanctuary are for altar table legs and the chancel screen postholes demarcate the sanctuary as a focus for liturgical performance in the church. However, it is also evident that there is a second focus for liturgical performance demarcated using this same evidence of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition, i.e. of whole and fragmentary artefacts from liturgical furniture in association with postholes for altar table legs and chancel screen posts. This secondary focus of  liturgical activity occurs in separate adjacent north chapels or parekklesiai. Of  those sites where the excavation extends beyond the walls of  the church there is surprising consistency in that eight of  the sixteen sites have a north chapel (Table 3.7) and only one, the South Church at Nessana, has a south chapel. Of particular interest is that the north chapel at Khirbat al-Karak has a mosaic inscription that identifies it as the diakonikon.49

47 G.M. Fitzgerald wrote: ‘Between these stones and the apse, we found a broken slab of marble 1.23 metres wide (and probably at least a metre high when complete) with a cross surrounded by a wreath carved on one side (Plate III, Figure 5.) This suggested a clue to the meaning of  the word στεφανοσταυρίον (wreathed cross) which is found in both the inscriptions in the chapel f loor.’ The wreathed cross is on a marble chancel screen fragment. See Fitzgerald (1939), 3–4, and 14–16, and also figure 5. For the text see Ovadiah and Ovadiah (1987), 26–30. 48 Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.3. 49 Inscription no. 1: ‘+[Christ help] Theodore Magister and Theophilas and Basil. [Gloriously] was executed the paving of  the communicating hall and of  the diaconicon under [the pious] presbyters Elijah and Basil in Indiction 7, year 591.’ The year 591 provides a date of  A.D. 528/9 at the start of  Justinian’s reign (A.D. 527–565).

What can church sites reveal about liturgy?

59

Where there are baptismal fonts in baptisteries they are located outside the church building. This might suggest that people are baptised before entering the church building. In the triapsidal churches at Petra, Pella and Poreč they are located in or of f  the atrium, and at Khirbat al-Karak and the monoapsidal churches at Santa Cornelia and Mola di Monte Gelato they are in a north chapel. Once the candidate had been baptised they could then process into the church to be welcomed by the congregation, and this would be a dif ferent experience to that undertaken by a candidate for baptism in a church with the Syrian church plan where they had to enter the church complex to reach the baptistery where they were baptised. There is evidence for an ambo at only four of  these sites (Table 3.7), but in all four cases it is located north of  the nave entrance to the sanctuary, often referred to as the ‘Gospel side.’ Of interest is that seven of  the churches provide some evidence for a synthronon in the apse and four have evidence for a bishop’s seat in the apse, and possibly at a fifth also. The presence of a synthronon or tiered seating in the main apse would suggest that it was a regular occurrence for the clergy or choir to sit there. Similarly the presence of a bishop’s seat in the main apse would also indicate that it was a regular occurrence for a bishop, or their representative, to be seated there. These are more common in the Roman church plan than in the other two church plans discussed, i.e. Constantinopolitan and Syrian, and this would strongly suggest that there are dif ferences in how churches with these dif ferent plans are used. There is evidence that many of  the triapsidal churches have a side altar located in each of  the side apses that were either located over reliquaries placed in the mosaic pavement beneath them or which supported reliquaries. Side altars occur in the triapsidal churches at Horvat Hesheq, Haluza, Nahariya, the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev, the Petra Church, and Khirbat al-Karak, and also at the monoapsidal church of  Santa Cornelia in Italy (A.D. 774–776). There are also instances where small tables are attached or located immediately to the rear of  the chancel barrier facing

See Delougaz and Haines (1960), plate 51A. Also Haines (1960), 17, and Kraeling (1960), 53.

60

Chapter 3

the nave, such as at the Petra Church, and because of  this they are referred to as ‘of fertory tables.’50 It is possible that this activity is driven by the 14th canon of  the Council of  Carthage (A.D. 401) in which the placing of relics in caskets beneath altars is made compulsory in the West for churches associated with the Roman See, which is a practice that is not made compulsory for churches in the East until the 7th Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in A.D. 787.51 This passion for collecting multiple relics of saints and placing these on or under side altars in Palestine, Constantinople and France is attested by contemporary texts.52 In relation to fifth–sixth century triapsidal churches in the Negev, Zbigniew Fiema suggests there is: […] reemphasis on the cult of Martyrs and Saints, and the associated liturgical changes which af fected architectural arrangements and the location of  the reliquaries.53

Perhaps the most enlightening reason prof fered for this cultic practice comes from an eighth-century textual reference in the West that might better illuminate the rationale behind multiple altars, and because of its importance I provide the relevant quote in full. Saint Benedict of  Aniane and Inde is commanded in A.D. 782 by King Charles the Great (Charlemagne) to construct a monastery at Aniane (near to Arles and the south coast of  France), and: 50 For Petra see Kanellopoulos and Schick (2001), figure 20. 51 See Tzaferis (1983), 9–10, and footnote 7. 52 In the sixth century Radegund (A.D. 525–587) Queen of  the Franks sent for relics of  the Blessed Mammas to accompany the many relics of saints from the East that she already possessed. She also petitioned the Byzantine emperor Justin II in A.D. 568/9 for wood from the True Cross for her monastery. See McNamara, Halborg and Whatley (1992), 95–97. In a later eighth-century text referring to Constantinople there is a reference to three saints, i.e. Anthony, Timothy and Luke the Evangelist, who are buried beneath one altar, and to Saint John Chrysostom who is buried in front of another altar. See Talbot (1995), 159. Another example of  the cult of saints is found in Connolly and Picard (1987), 26. 53 Fiema (2001), 53. Also Margalit (1989), 143–164 and (1990), 321–334; Negev (1989), 129–142; Rosenthal-Heginbottom (1988); Schneider (1938), 96–108; and Kraeling (1960), 22–25.

What can church sites reveal about liturgy?

61

Because it glistened with outstanding religious observance, we deem it appropriate to relate for future generations some things about the location of  that place. Venerable Father Benedict decided upon pious ref lection to consecrate the aforesaid church not by the title of one of  the saints but in the name of  the Holy Trinity. For it to be more clearly recognized, he determined that three small altars should be placed near the main altar so that by them the persons of  the Trinity may be figuratively indicated. A marvellous arrangement it is: by the three altars the undivided Trinity is shown forth and by the single altar the true Godhead in essence is shown forth. The great altar is one solid surface on the front, but inwardly concave […] It has a little door behind where on ferial days chests containing various relics of  the fathers are enclosed […] Lastly three further altars in the basilica were dedicated, one in honor of  Saint Michael the archangel, another in devotion to the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and a third in honor of good Stephen the protomartyr […] In the church of  Blessed Mary Mother of  God which was first established, there are altars of Saint Martin and blessed Benedict. But that one that is built in the cemetery is distinguished in honor of  Saint John the Baptist […] It is appropriate to ponder with what profound humility and reverence this place was feared by them, this place protected by so many princes. The Lord Christ is indeed the Prince of all princes, King of  kings, the Lord of  lords. Blessed Mary Mother of  God is held to be queen of all virgins. Michael is placed over all angels. Peter and Paul are chiefs of  the apostles. Stephen the protomartyr holds first place in the choir of witnesses. Martin shines as a gem of prelates. Benedict is father of all monks. By the seven altars, by the seven candelabra, and by the seven lamps, the sevenfold grace of  the Holy Spirit is understood.54

From this it is apparent that the main church has seven altars in total, the church dedicated to Mary has two altars, and the cemetery church only one.55 However the precise location of  these altars and the church plan are not provided, although we should note here that there are certainly contemporary triapsidal churches found in the West at this time. The presence of multiple altar tables in churches would go some way towards explaining why the sanctuary in Chalcedonian Roman churches occupied such a large area in the Early Byzantine basilical church. On the basis of  the available archaeological evidence the Roman church plan not only appears to be significantly dif ferent to that of  both 54 See Cabaniss (1995), 217 and footnote 9, and also 228–229. 55 I take there to be a main altar f lanked by one dedicated to Saint Martin (Martin of  Tours), and the other to Benedict (Benedict of  Nursia).

62

Chapter 3

the Constantinopolitan and Syrian church plans, but also to be used dif ferently. With the notable exception of  the South Church at Nessana, the presence of a separate north chapel appears to be a common feature and there does appear to be a clear north bias with the ambo generally located to the north of  the nave entrance to the sanctuary. Mathews’ contention that the laity brought gifts up to the altar and some of  these were then transferred straight to the church altar for the liturgy is challenged by the presence of  these separate north chapels, and in particular by the mosaic inscription at Khirbat al-Karak which describes it as the diakonikon. Instead the archaeological evidence for an altar table and chancel screen in these side chapels appears to favour Crowfoot’s contention that the rite of prothesis took place in a separate side chapel, which also functioned as a diakonikon during the Early Byzantine period. Similarly, Mathews depicts the typical Roman church as monoapsidal with a T-shaped sanctuary and chancel barrier.56 However, the church of  St. Clemente in Rome is possibly triapsidal, i.e. there are two apses present and with a possible third apse obscured by a later staircase. The church of  St. Clemente also has a T-shaped sanctuary enclosed by a chancel barrier that matches the typical T-shaped sanctuary in the Levant such as at SS. Peter & Paul in Gerasa.57 Shlomo Margalit has observed a connection between triapsidal church buildings and the Roman Church in Palestine during the sixth century, noting that the ‘ideology of  the Orthodox (in the epoch of  Justinian I through to Heraclius) finally overcame the beliefs of  the Monophysites.’58 The archaeological evidence links these triapsidal churches with a T-shaped sanctuary that Mathews identifies as common to Roman churches, which favours Margalit’s analysis. Of particular interest here is that there is archaeological evidence in the form of  liturgical furniture that links some of  the triapsidal Roman church sites from the catalogue to the church of  St. Clemente in Rome. 56 Mathews (1962), figure 1. 57 For St. Clemente see Brandenburg (2005), 295 and plate XIX.5, 293 and plate XVIII.1, and also 314 and plate XXXVI.1. For SS. Peter & Paul see Crowfoot (1941), frontispiece. 58 Margalit (1989), 155.

What can church sites reveal about liturgy?

63

The church of  St. Clemente in Rome was renovated during the early sixth century by presbyter Mercurius. Mercurius later became pope John II (A.D. 533–535) and there is a chancel screen in the church that bears his encircled monogram f lanked by two Latin crosses.59 This same decoration, albeit with the monogram of pope John II replaced by a six-armed wreathed cross, appears on chancel screens at Poreč in Croatia, the Marzamemi ‘church’ shipwreck, the church of  St. Polyeuktos at Saraçhane in Constantinople, and also at San Marco in Venice which Harrison thinks has architectural elements looted from St. Polyeuktos.60 There are also remarkable similarities between an ambo recovered from the Marzamemi ‘church’ shipwreck, two others from Beyazit Basilica A and St. Polyeuktos in Constantinople, and another from the triapsidal church at Novae in Bulgaria.61 There is a similar decoration with Latin crosses f lanking a four-armed wreathed cross also found at the three Roman church sites of  the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev, Horvat Hesheq and Petra and also at

59 The monoapsidal basilical church of  St. Clemente was renovated during the sixth century by presbyter Mercurius/pope John II and the chancel screen bears his monogram. The renovated church has evidence for a second apse, and a third is possibly obscured by a later staircase, i.e. it might have been a triapsidal church. It is interesting that he began the renovations under pope Hormisdas (A.D. 514–523), who healed the schism with Constantinople and emperor Justin I (A.D. 518–527). See Brandenburg (2005), plate 73, and 294–295. 60 For the Marzamemi shipwreck see Kapitän (1969), 123 and 128. For Poreč see Terry (1988), figure 62, 63 and 64. For Saraçhane see Harrison (1986), figure H, and also plate 177 and 178. For San Marco see Terry (1988), 41–51, and figure 3, 8, 10, 10 and 19. Harrison argues that St. Polyeuktos was renovated from A.D. 524–527. He also draws parallels between St. Polyeuktos and Poreč, and with San Marco in Venice among others. See Harrison (1989), 15–41, 141 and figure 176, and also 103, 104 and figure 122 and 125. 61 For the church shipwreck at Marzamemi see Kapitän (1980), figure 18 and 26. For the Beyazit Basilica A ambo see Mathews (1971), figure 37. For St. Polyeuktos see Harrison (1986), plate 181, and also figure H. And for Novae see Parnicki-Pudelko (1983), figure 13. For a hypothetical reconstruction of  the Novae ambo see Biernacki (1995), 315–332, and particularly figure 10.

64

Chapter 3

the North Church in Nessana, but also at the church of  Mount Nebo.62 The church at Petra and the North Church in Nessana also have identical pierced marble chancel screens, and Mount Nebo and Pella share another pierced marble chancel screen design that appears on a later solid marble chancel screen from Santa Cornelia in Italy.63 All of  these sites have Roman church plans with the exception of  the North Church at Nessana, which however does have a north chapel and was renovated during the early sixth century, and also the church at Mount Nebo which was rebuilt during the sixth century. It is dif ficult to determine why some sites with a Syrian church plan have common decorative elements in their liturgical furniture to those found in the church of  St. Clemente in Rome, or why they share similarities to those with a Roman church plan. However there is remarkable evidence that five Roman churches were constructed originally with a Syrian church plan, but were subsequently converted to a triapsidal Roman church plan during the sixth century, and the church at Khirbat al-Karak is a simple monoapsidal-to-triapsidal church conversion. There is also evidence that the church at Novae in Bulgaria was also converted to a triapsidal Roman church plan at this time.64 (iv) Syrian-to-Roman church conversion These sites form a distinctive sub-group and there are distinct characteristics associated with these sites. 62 For the North Church at Nessana see Colt (1962), plate XIX. For Mount Nebo see Saller (1941), 124.3 and 125.2. For the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev see Patrich (1988), plate X. For Horvat Hesheq see Aviam (1990), figure 20. And for the Petra Church see Kanellopoulos and Schick (2001), figure 5. 63 For the identical pierced chancel screen at the North Church in Nessana see Colt (1962), plate XVIII2, and at Petra see panels ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘d’ in Kanellopoulos and Schick (2001), figure 15 and 17. The other related group are found at Mount Nebo in Saller (1941), plate 124.2; at Pella in Smith and Day (1989), 123, figure 34 and plate 20A; and at Santa Cornelia in Christie and Daniels (1991), plate 48–50. 64 Parnicki-Pudelko (1983), 241–270.

What can church sites reveal about liturgy?

65

1. T-shaped or bar-shaped chancel barrier and sanctuary on raised mosaic pavement, but possibly with evidence for a Π-shaped chancel barrier and sanctuary retained in the suppressed lower mosaic pavement. 2. The converted church either has side apses inserted into each room to either side of  the main inscribed apse, as at Horvat Hesheq, or the east end of  the church demolished and rebuilt in a triapsidal configuration, as at Pella of  the Decapolis. 3. A separate north chapel or diakonikon associated with the triapsidal Roman church plan, and possibly a suppressed south chapel attached to the south aisle associated with the earlier Syrian church plan. 4. These conversions appear to coincide with the switch in religious favour from the Monophysite Antiochene or Syrian Church to the Chalcedonian Roman Church during the sixth century that accompanied the accession of emperor Justin I and his nephew Justinian I. 5. As noted in the previous section, liturgical furniture from several churches have decorative motifs that link these sites to the church of  St. Clemente in Rome. Five of these are known Syrian-to-Roman church plan conversions, i.e. Poreč in Croatia, the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev, Horvat Hesheq, Petra and Pella. This is a phenomenon that has already been explored in Palestine by Margalit who provides evidence that during the early sixth century Syrian churches with f lanking apsidal rooms are converted into triapsidal churches at the North Church at Shivta, the cathedral at Haluza, Avdat, Khirbet Eirav, Horvat Hesheq, the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev, and at Pella of  the Decapolis.65 It is also apparent that the Petra Church in Jordan is converted at this time, and also the church at Khirbat al-Karak.66 As noted above, the timing of  these events is significant. Procopius of  Caesarea states that Chosroes invaded this region in A.D. 540 and over

65 Margalit (1989), 143–164. 66 For Petra see Bikai (2001). And for Khirbat al-Karak see Delougaz and Haines (1960).

66

Chapter 3

four successive years during which he captured Antioch and resettled the captives in Persia in the city of  Ctesiphon, referred to as the ‘Antioch of  Chosroes.’67 It is possible that these successive Persian invasions simply depleted the indigenous Monophysite Syrian population in this area, and they were then subsequently replaced by colonists from the West who then adapted abandoned Syrian churches into triapsidal churches to suit their own liturgical needs. However the churches at Poreč in Croatia and Novae in Bulgaria were also converted during the mid-sixth century and, as mentioned earlier, the church of  St. Clemente in Rome was similarly renovated with a second apse (and possibly into a triapsidal church plan, i.e. a third apse may be obscured by a later staircase) by presbyter Mercurius (later pope John II, from A.D. 533–535) under pope Hormisdas, with whom emperor Justin I (A.D. 518–527) healed the schism between Constantinople and Rome.68 The pro-Chalcedonian emperor Justin I succeeded the pro-Monophysite emperor Anastasius I (A.D. 491–518), and is credited with immediately seeking reconciliation with the Church of  Rome. Justin I sent a letter to pope Hormisdas (A.D. 514–523) noting his election at the favour of  the ‘inseparable Trinity,’ and the army and Senate.69 S. Ashbrook Harvey notes that when Justin I ascended the throne in A.D. 518 ‘Imperial favor turned decisively to Rome, and a pro-Chalcedonian stance was a major part of  that shift.’70 In light of  this historical information it would be fair to ask whether these Syrian-to-Roman church conversions in the region of  Syria and Palestine ref lect a more universal discrimination against the Monophysite Syrian Church.

67 68 69 70

Dewing (1998), 381 and 489. Brandenburg (2005), 146. See also Anastos (1985), 126–139. Anastos (1985), 134. Christian Chalcedonian Catholic Church (or C4), as set out in the imperial enactment of  A.D. 380 that is reproduced in Justinian’s Code. Some commentators also refer to it as the Melchite Church. See Harvey (1988), 296. Also Mango (1980), 88. See also Godlewski (1993), 169–176. Harrison notes that full restoration of  links with Rome were in ef fect by A.D. 523. See Harrison (1986), 420.

What can church sites reveal about liturgy?

67

Justin I and his successor Justinian I (A.D. 527–565) are thought to have persecuted the Monophysite church, and by A.D. 519 their bishops are ‘deposed and banished.’71 Milton V. Anastos cited an edict issued by Justin I in A.D. 527, possibly in collaboration with Justinian I, ‘which imposed heavy penalties upon heretics and deprived them of  their property,’ and this could explain these radical changes at this time.72 Volker L. Menze also argues that by A.D. 538 the emperor Justinian I allowed Chalcedonians to take over ‘Arian’ property as well, and this might have led to some Arian churches being converted to Roman church plans at this time also.73 The degree of antipathy between the Chalcedonian Church and those whose Monophysite churches it converted might best be seen at Pella of the Decapolis where a chancel post from the earlier church is re-used as a step into the renovated T-shaped sanctuary. This meant that the Chalcedonian clergy stepped on it each time they entered and left the sanctuary, and a chancel screen panel was re-used as the base for the new altar table.74 It is also evident from the internal banishment by Justinian I of  the Monophysite patriarch of  Alexandria and three hundred of  the most eminent bishops and clergy from the Alexandrian Church in A.D. 536–537 to a fortress called Dercus in Thrace.75 On the basis of  the available evidence from the catalogue these sites with a Roman church plan from the Levant dif fer considerably from both the Constantinopolitan and Syrian church plans, both in plan and internal configuration. Not only do they share T-shaped or bar-shaped sanctuary layouts similar to those of  Roman churches in Italy, but several also share decorative elements in the liturgical furniture with the early sixth century church of  St. Clemente in Rome and the church of  Santa Cornelia. Furthermore a third are converted Syrian-to-Roman church plans that 71

See for instance Mango (1980), 88–97. Also Angold (2002), 40–41. For a detailed history of  these events see also Menze (2008), 8–9. 72 Anastos (1985), 138. 73 In this context Menze uses ‘Arian’ to indicate opponents of  the Council of  Nicaea. Menze (2008), 6 and footnote 20. 74 Smith and Day (1989), figure 33, and plate 35A. 75 Menze (2008), 223.

68

Chapter 3

share decorative elements on their liturgical furniture with the church of  St. Clemente in Rome. Lastly, those basilical church sites that could not be assigned to any of  the three categories outlined above were placed together in a group of indeterminate sites. Some of  these sites are incomplete, or incompletely excavated. Others are not a natural fit for any of  the three groups and this may signal that there are other church plans, and possibly other liturgies, that remain to be identified. For example it is possible that there might be a distinctive Alexandrian church plan, perhaps similar to the Nubian churches excavated by Adams, which might ref lect a unique Alexandrian liturgy.76 The question for archaeologists is whether it is possible to design and implement a research strategy that might unveil similar patterns of activity in the archaeological record.

Conclusion In this chapter the intention had been to place Early Byzantine basilical churches from the catalogue into the three most common groups identified by Crowfoot to allow like-for-like analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition between sites with a common ground plan. A catalogue of  forty-seven church sites (Table 2.1) was compiled. However a problem was encountered. Having compiled the catalogue of sites it became clear that there are two distinct sanctuary configurations, i.e. the Π-shaped sanctuary and the T-shaped sanctuary, that could af fect artefactual deposition and which needed to be considered when placing sites into groups. When these two factors were taken into consideration the sites could be placed into three new defined groups (figure 3.1), and also a fourth group of  ‘indeterminate’ sites that did not match any of  these. 76 Adams (1965), 87–139.

What can church sites reveal about liturgy?

69

The Π-shaped sanctuary is found in association with two distinct groups of  Early Byzantine basilical churches. In the first group the Π-shaped sanctuary is found in monoapsidal church sites where the apse protrudes and there is a major entrance to either side of it.77 This group broadly matches that which Mathews linked to a distinctive Constantinopolitan church plan and with the Byzantine rite. In the second group the Π-shaped sanctuary is found in sites that have an inscribed apse with a room to either side of it.78 These sites correspond to sites that Howard Butler describes as Syrian and broadly match those which Mathews linked with the Monophysite Syrian liturgy of northern Syria.79 A third group of churches was suggested by further research which indicated that the T-shaped and bar-shaped sanctuary are associated with triapsidal church plans in the Levant and Croatia, and commonly with a monoapsidal church plan in Italy.80 This church plan broadly matches that which Mathews linked with the church plan found in Rome and to the early Roman liturgy Ordo Romanus I. Once these sites were placed into these three new groups it readily became apparent that there is a remarkable homogeneity among churches in each of  the three groups. Through placing church sites with a common plan into these groups (figure 3.1) it was possible to observe other features that many, if not all, had in common with each other. This has practical applications in that the catalogue of church sites can serve as a reference work against which other Early Byzantine church sites elsewhere can be compared for further analysis, and this process can in turn help to validate these three groupings and confirm their integrity, and also possibly allow further observations to be made. Once the four Constantinopolitan churches were placed together in the catalogue it was noticeable that there are common characteristics such as an association with separate north chapels, which they share with the Roman churches, and the ambo is positioned south of  the nave entrance to the sanctuary, which they share with the Syrian church plan. 77 78 79 80

Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.1. Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.2. Butler (1903). Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.3.

70

Chapter 3

Having collated the Syrian church plans in the catalogue it has been possible to make further observations regarding these sites, such as the repeated association of  these sites with separate south chapels attached to their south aisle, the positioning of  the baptistery adjacent the south aisle, and the ambo positioned south of  the nave entrance to the sanctuary. Once the Roman church plans were brought together further observations indicated that there is repeated association with north chapels, and with the ambo positioned north of  the nave entrance into the sanctuary. They are far more likely than other church plans to exhibit evidence for a synthronon or tiered seats in the apse, and a bishop’s seat. These churches repeatedly exhibit evidence for side altars and reliquaries that appear to coincide with the introduction of  the 14th canon of  the Council of  Carthage (A.D. 401) in which the placing of relics in caskets beneath altars is made compulsory for churches associated with the Roman See. Of particular interest is that some surviving chancel screens share a common decorative element with a chancel screen with the monograph of pope John II (A.D. 533–535) in the church of  St. Clemente in Rome, and also from the Marzamemi ‘church shipwreck.’ There is also the remarkable observation that nearly fifty per cent of  these Roman churches in the catalogue were converted from their original ‘Syrian’ church plans into triapsidal Roman churches. These conversions occur not only in the Levant but in Bulgaria, Croatia and possibly at St. Clemente in Rome also. When the original Syrian church building was converted to a Roman church plan with its accompanying north chapel it is entirely possible that the earlier south chapel was suppressed in such a way that might reward further excavation and facilitate comparative analysis between the two chapels at each of  these sites. Furthermore, while conducting comparative analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition for liturgical furniture and high status marble artefacts, and in conjunction with evidence from postholes for altar table legs and chancel screen posts, it became apparent that there are often two foci of liturgical activity – (i) in the sanctuary and, where they are excavated, (ii) in side chapels. The second focus of  liturgical activity is identified using the same set of criteria used to identify the sanctuary in the church as a focus of  liturgical activity, i.e. repeated patterns of artefactual deposition,

71

What can church sites reveal about liturgy?

and consists of postholes for altar table legs and for chancel screen posts supported by evidence from whole or fragmentary evidence for liturgical furniture. In the following chapter this evidence will be examined in more detail. Table 3.1. Constantinopolitan church plan: apsidal plan and configuration of  the sanctuary Site

Monoapsidal

Inscribed apse

Triapsidal

Π-shaped sanctuary & chancel barrier layout

Propylaea Church, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

Yes

St. Theodore, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

Yes

Synagogue Church, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

Yes

Shavei Zion, Israel

Yes

Yes

T-shaped sanctuary & chancel barrier layout

Table 3.2. Constantinopolitan churches: side chapel, ambo, synthronon and bishop’s seat. Site

North chapel

Propylaea Church, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

St. Theodore, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

South chapel

Ambo north (gospel side) of nave entrance

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Synthronon

Yes

Synagogue Church, Gerasa, Jordan Shavei Zion, Israel

Ambo south (epistle side) of nave entrance

Initially two lecterns, but probably, yes – internal

Yes

Bishop’s seat

72

Chapter 3 Table 3.3. Syrian church plans: apsidal plan and configuration of  the sanctuary Site

Monoapsidal

Inscribed apse

Triapsidal

Π-shaped sanctuary & chancel barrier layout

Cathedral Church, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

Yes

Large Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgaria

Yes

Yes

Eastern Church, Herodium, Israel

Yes

Yes

Kursi, Gergesa, Israel

Yes

Yes

Old Church, Old Dongola, Sudan

Yes

Yes

St. Stephen’s, Horvat Be’ershemca, Israel

Yes

Yes

St. John the Baptist, St. George, and SS. Cosmas & Damianus, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

Yes

Ostrakine, Israel

Yes

Yes

Central Basilica, Ostrakine, Israel

Yes

Yes

Coastal basilica, Ostrakine, Israel

Yes

Yes

Central Church, Herodium, Israel

Yes

Yes

Horvat Berachot, Israel

Yes

Yes

T-shaped sanctuary & chancel barrier layout

73

What can church sites reveal about liturgy? Khirbet ed-Deir, Israel

Yes

Yes

Horvat Beit Loya, Israel

Yes

Yes

North Church, Nessana, Israel

Yes

Yes

Table 3.4. Syrian churches: side chapel, ambo, synthronon and bishop’s seat Site

North chapel

South chapel

Cathedral Church, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

Large Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgariaa

Yes

Eastern Church, Herodium, Israel

Yes

Kursi, Gergesa, Israel

Yes

Old Church, Old Dongola, Sudan

Yes

St. Stephen’s, Horvat Be’ershemca, Israel

Yes

St. John the Baptist, St. George, and SS. Cosmas & Damianus, Gerasa, Jordan Ostrakine, Israel Central Basilica, Ostrakine, Israel

Ambo north (gospel side) of nave entrance

Ambo south (epistle side) of nave entrance

Synthronon

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Bishop’s seat

74

Chapter 3 Site

North chapel

South chapel

Ambo north (gospel side) of nave entrance

Ambo south (epistle side) of nave entrance

Synthronon

Bishop’s seat

Coastal basilica, Ostrakine, Israel Central Church, Herodium, Israel Horvat Berachot, Israel Khirbet ed-Deir, Israel Horvat Beit Loya, Israel

Yes

North Church, Nessana, Israel

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

a The ambo here is in the centre of  the nave

Table 3.5. Single-aisled Syrian churches with south chapels associated with Syrian plan: south chapel, ambo, synthronon and bishop’s seat Site

North chapel

South chapel

Small Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgaria

Yes

Monastery of  Martyrius, Israel

Yes

Ambo north (gospel side) of nave entrance

Ambo south (epistle side) of nave entrance

Synthronon

Bishop’s seat

75

What can church sites reveal about liturgy? Table 3.6. Roman church plans: apsidal plan and configuration of  the sanctuary (thirteen of  the sixteen sites are triapsidal churches) Site

Monoapsidal

Inscribed apse

Triapsidal

Π-shaped sanctuary & chancel barrier layout

T-shaped or bar-shaped sanctuary & chancel barrier layout

‘Evron, Israel

Yes

North Church, Rehovot-in-theNegev, Israela

Yes

Yes

Khirbat al-Karak, Israel

Yes

Yes

Poreč, Croatiaa

Yes

Yes

Procopius Church, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

Yes (bar-shaped)

SS. Peter & Paul, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

Yes

Santa Cornelia, Italyb

Yes

Mola di Monte Gelato, Italyb

Yes

Yes

Haluza Cathedral, Israela

Yes

Yes

Petra, Jordana

Yes

Yes

Pella of  the Decapolis, Jordana

Yes

Yes

Horvat Hesheq, Israela

Yes

Yes

Nahariya, Israel

Yes

Yes

Khirbet el-Waziah, Israel

Yes

76

Chapter 3 Site

Monoapsidal

Santa Liberato, Italyb

Inscribed apse

Triapsidal

Π-shaped sanctuary & chancel barrier layout

T-shaped or bar-shaped sanctuary & chancel barrier layout

Yes

Yes

St. Mary’s or South Church, Nessana, Israel

Yes

Yes

a Denotes five known Syrian-to-Roman church conversions and also Khirbat al-Karak, which is converted from a protruding monoapsidal church. b Denotes that there are written references that indicate that the church belongs to a papal estate.

Table 3.7. Roman churches: side chapel, ambo, synthronon and bishop’s seat Site

North chapel

South chapel

Ambo north (gospel side) of nave entrance

Ambo south (epistle side) of nave entrance

Synthronon

Bishop’s seat

‘Evron, Israel

Yes

North Church, Rehovot-in-theNegev, Israel

Yes

Khirbat al-Karak, Israel

Yes

Yes

Poreč, Croatia

Yes

Yes

Yes

Procopius Church, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

Yes

Yes

SS. Peter & Paul, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

Yes

Santa Cornelia, Italy

Yes

Mola di Monte Gelato, Italy

Yes

Yes

Yes

77

What can church sites reveal about liturgy? Haluza Cathedral, Israel

Yes

Petra, Jordan

Yes

Pella of  the Decapolis, Jordan Horvat Hesheq, Israel Nahariya, Israel Khirbet el-Waziah, Israel Santa Liberato, Italy St. Mary’s or South Church, Israel

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Possibly

Yes

Yes

Chapter 4

A second focus of  liturgical activity

The chapter begins by considering the definition of a diakonikon, and what activities are associated with it. Then some current prevailing views as to the location of  the diakonikon are reviewed. The available archaeological evidence from the catalogue is then examined to determine whether it is possible to determine the location of  the diakonikon, and what activities took place there. This chapter is prompted, firstly, by Krautheimer’s argument that the congregation’s of ferings were brought to the diakonikon, and so its location might coincide with a concentration of domestic artefacts in its vicinity.1 Detailed analysis of domestic pottery deposited in church sites is conducted in the next chapter, but determining the location of  the diakonikon is necessary to allow informed analysis of  their disposition. Secondly, by the discovery of a second focus of  liturgical activity in side chapels (figure 4.1) adjacent to church buildings.2 Crowfoot had argued, based upon his research at Gerasa, that during the Early Byzantine period the rite of prothesis took place in the side chapel, and he thought it also functioned as a diakonikon at this time.3 This line of argument gained 1 2 3

Krautheimer (1986), 94–95, 518 and 520. A chapel is a subordinate place of worship. I use the transliteration ‘diakonikon’ here in preference to the Latinised ‘diaconicum’ or the modern usage of  ‘diaconicon.’ In some part this is also out of respect for Crowfoot’s dif ferentiation between an earlier diakonikon-cum-prothesis chapel located in side chapels during the Early Byzantine period, and the later practice wherein the rite of prothesis occurs in a room adjacent to the apse and the other room functions as the ‘diaconicum.’ These side rooms are commonly collectively referred to as pastophoria. See Crowfoot (1938), 177–179, and footnote 6. Also Krautheimer (1986), 94–95, and 519.

(i) Typical Constantinopolitan church plan

North side chapel

(ii) Typical Syrian church plan

North

South side chapel North side chapel (iii) Typical Roman church plan

Figure 4.1. Second focus of  liturgical activity located in side chapels.* * These typical church plans and layouts are based upon St. Theodore in Gerasa (Constantinopolitan), see Kraeling (1938) plan XXXIII; Kursi (Syrian), see Tzaferis (1983), plan 4; and also Khirbat al-Karak and SS. Peter & Paul in Gerasa (Roman), see Delougaz and Haines (1960), plate 51A and Kraeling (1938), plan XXXIX.

A second focus of  liturgical activity

81

some credibility because there is an absence of an alternative secondary liturgical focus inside the church building that would support arguments that the rite of prothesis was conducted in a diakonikon or prothesis chapel located inside the church. The question considered here is whether there is evidence for liturgical activity in parekklesiai during the Early Byzantine period, i.e. does liturgical activity extend beyond the church building into side chapels or parekklesiai. The nature of  this liturgical activity will be interrogated and the relationship between these side chapels or parekklesiai and the church will be considered. There is archaeological evidence from whole or fragmentary liturgical furniture and from post holes, and there is also important evidence from mosaic inscriptions that can help to answer these questions. The term ‘diakonikon’ is translated as the ‘house of  the deacons.’4 Crowfoot thinks that during the Early Byzantine period the rite of prothesis occurs in a side chapel or parekklesia that functions as a diakonikon, and by the Middle Byzantine period the diakonikon and a prothesis chapel each separately gravitate to a room to either side of the apse.5 Krautheimer also thinks the rite of prothesis took place in the diakonikon (also skeuophylakion), and that only later did ‘the Eastern Churches set aside for that rite a separate place.’6 They both argue that liturgical performance has two foci of liturgical activity: (i) the Eucharist is prepared on an altar in either a room adjacent to the apse or else in a side chapel adjacent to the church, and from where the clergy depart as they transfer the bread and wine for the service to (ii) the altar in the church sanctuary where the of ferings or gifts are placed for the service. At the conclusion of  the service the clergy retrace their steps. This suggests that the diakonikon should be relatively easy to identify, because if  the rite of prothesis does indeed take place in the diakonikon, or in a room adjacent to the apse, during the Early Byzantine period then it requires the presence of an altar in a sacred or sanctified setting where the

4 5 6

Cooper and MacLean (1902), 49, and 62–64, and footnote 13. Crowfoot (1938), 177–179, and footnote 6 and 9. Krautheimer (1986), 94–95, 102, 469 and endnote 5, and also 518 and 520. Also Brightman and Hammond (1896), 309–310 and 586–587.

82

Chapter 4

of fering or gift of  bread and wine from the congregation can be prepared prior to being transferred to the church sanctuary. There is some supporting evidence that the rite of prothesis took place in the diakonikon from two silver altars recovered from Luxor in Egypt, which have inscriptions that indicate these altar tables were used in a diakonikon at this time.7 Of interest is that Crowfoot cites the example of  the hegumen at the fifth-century coenobium of  St. Euthymius who took his guests to the inner chamber of  the diakonikon for breakfast after viewing the treasures stored there.8 This could suggest that the diakonikon in this coenobium at this time consists of more than one room, i.e. a suite of rooms, or that the room was partitioned. There are, as already noted, a number of conf licting opinions as to the location of  the diakonikon during the Early Byzantine period.

Where is the diakonikon located? As previously noted, the term ‘diakonikon’ is translated as the ‘house of  the deacons.’9 The most complete description of  the disposition of an Early Byzantine church and the location of activity centres, including the diakonikon, comes from the ‘Testament of  Our Lord,’ described as the ‘testament, or words which our Lord, when he rose from the dead, spake to the Holy Apostles, and which were written in eight books by Clement of  Rome, the disciple of  Peter.’ Chapter 19 states: 7 8

9

See Messiha (1992), 129–134. Also the Liber Pontificalis records that seven silver altars were given as gifts to the Lateran by Constantine, and Lowrie argues that these were tables of prothesis. See Lowrie (1901), 126. Crowfoot (1938), 178 and footnote 9. It should be noted however that Hirschfeld, although he refers to Derwas Chitty’s 1920s excavation, makes no mention of a diakonikon at this site. See Hirschfeld (1993), 339–371, and also footnote 1 for a list of  Chitty’s preliminary publications on the excavation. Cooper and MacLean (1902), 49, and 62–64, and footnote 13.

A second focus of  liturgical activity

83

I tell you therefore how the sanctuary ought to be; then I will make known the holy rule of  the priests of  the Church. Let the church then be thus: let it have three entrances as a type of  the Trinity. Let the diaconicum [footnote 13: house of  the deacons] be on the right of  the right hand entrance, that the eucharists, or of ferings which are of fered, may be seen. Let there be a fore-court, with a portico going round, to the diaconicum. Then within the fore-court let there be a place [to serve] for a baptistery, its length twenty-one cubits as a general type of  the prophets, and its width twelve cubits as a type of  those who have been determined to preach the Gospel, with one entrance and three exits. Let the Church have a house of  the catechumens, which shall be also the house of  the exorcists. Let it not be detached from the Church, but so that those who enter and are in it may hear the lections and spiritual hymns of praise and psalms. Let there be a throne by the altar; on the right and on the left [let there be] the places of  the presbyters, so that on the right may sit those who labour in the word; but those who are of middle age on the left hand. But that place where the throne is, let it be raised three steps, for there the altar ought to be. Let that house have two porches, on the right and on the left, for men and for women. Let all the places be lighted, both for a type, and also for reading. Let the altar have a veil of pure linen, for it is without spot. Also the baptistery likewise, let it be under a veil. Let a place be built as for commemoration, so that the priest and chief deacon sitting with the readers may write the names of  those who of fer the oblations, or of  those for whom they have of fered [them], so that when the holy things are of fered by the bishop, the reader or chief deacon may name them by way of commemoration, which the priests and people of fer for them with supplication. For there is this type also in heaven. Let the place of  the presbyters be within the veil, beside the place of commemoration. Let the house of  the of fering and the treasury be quite beside the diaconicum. But let the place of  the lection be a little outside the altar. Let the house of  the bishop be beside that place which is called the fore-court. Also that of  the widows who are called ‘those that sit in front.’ Also let that of  the presbyters and deacons be behind the baptistery. Let the deaconesses abide beside the door of  the Lord’s house. Let the Church have a house for entertaining near by, where the chief deacon shall entertain strangers.10 10 Cooper and MacLean (1902), 49, and 62–64. Dauphin and Gibson attribute the ‘Testament of  Our Lord’ to the second half of  the fifth century. See Dauphin and Gibson (1994–1995), 9–38.

84

Chapter 4

In this passage Clement of  Rome legislates for a diakonikon located to the right of  the right hand entrance to the church, and furthermore it appears to be located in the vicinity of  the atrium. We are also told that the of ferings and ‘eucharists’ can be seen there, which would suggest that the rite of prothesis is conducted in the diakonikon. This passage distinguishes between the diakonikon and the treasury. However, regardless of  this fifth-century text, there are conf licting opinions as to the location of  the diakonikon during the Early Byzantine period. These divergent views can be placed into three groups. Those that locate the diakonikon in a room to either side of  the apse; those that locate the diakonikon in the body of  the church; and those that locate the diakonikon outside the church building. The first group inevitably separate out the diakonikon and prothesis chapel from each other and allocate them a separate room to either side of  the apse. Therefore these can be further subdivided into those who locate the diakonikon in the room north of  the apse and the rite of prothesis in the room to the south of  the apse, and those who favour the counter­vailing view that the diakonikon is located in the room to the south of  the apse and the rite of prothesis in the north room.11 There are a number of problems with this view. Firstly, there is an obvious prerequisite that the church building in question must actually have a room to either side of  the apse in which the diakonikon and prothesis chapel can be located. Only one of  the three common Early Byzantine basilical 11

Hill states that: ‘The tripartite plan has a strong Syrian f lavour […] It seems likely but by no means certain that Cilician churches followed Syrian practice in having the prothesis in the south side-chamber, and the diaconicon in the north side-chamber.’ See Hill (1996), 23. For the countervailing argument see Butler (1903), 88. Also, in his introduction to the Life of  St. Matrona of  Perge, who lived in the fifth-to-sixth century, Mango thinks the location of  the diakonikon is normally in the sacristy south of  the apse. For Mango’s comments see Featherstone (1996), 26, and footnote 45. Tzaferis intriguingly states that firstly the diakonikon became the south pastophory when the diakonikon as a separate chapel was no longer needed, and that, when this happened, the functions of the diakonikon were transferred to the northern pastophory and the designation or title of diakonikon was transferred to the south pastophory. See Tzaferis (1983), 11, and footnote 16, 13 and 24.

A second focus of  liturgical activity

85

church plans (figure 3.1) examined in this thesis meets that criteria, and that is the Syrian church plan. The diakonikon could possibly be located in a room to either side of  the apse where such rooms do exist, but then there should be supporting archaeological evidence, such as for an altar table where the rite of prothesis might be conducted, or a chancel screen to cordon of f  the sanctified area from the congregation. There is archaeological evidence at two sites with a Syrian church plan for an altar table in the room to the south of  the apse, i.e. Ostrakine and the cathedral church at Haluza prior to its conversion to a Roman church plan, and Jean Lassus argues that in Syria the room south of  the apse ‘became a chapel dedicated to the relics of  the martyrs.’12 However at both of  these sites the excavation did not extend beyond the church building, and because of  this it is not known whether these two churches have separate side chapels (either attached to the south aisle or in a separate adjacent building) that might have functioned as diakonika. Georges Descoeudres observes that the rooms to either side of the apse in the Syrian church plan were used in many diverse ways, e.g. baptistery, burial chamber or memorial chapel, storage rooms for non-consumed gifts, or transit areas for pilgrims.13 Using this evidence Descoeudres argues that the rite of prothesis did not exist in Syrian churches prior to the Islamic invasion, and goes so far as to suggest that referring to the rooms to either side of  the apse as ‘prothesis’ or vestry (or liturgical pastophories) may therefore be misleading.14 Also, Crowfoot argues that locating the diakonikon and prothesis in pastophoria either side of  the apse is a later innovation, which is introduced in the Middle Byzantine period.15 In those Early Byzantine basilical churches with a Syrian church plan, Crowfoot associates the rooms to either side of  the apse with pastophoria as described in the Apostolical 12 13 14 15

He observes also that later in the Byzantine liturgy the room to either side of  the inscribed apse came to be called the prothesis and the diakonikon. See Lassus (1966), 41. Descoeudres (1983), 69–75. Descoeudres (1983), 75. Crowfoot (1938), 178.

86

Chapter 4

Constitutions where the lamps and other paraphernalia are kept, i.e. they function as storage rooms. He argues that with the development of  the grand and little entrances during the late sixth century, and also the rite of prothesis, the room north of  the main apse becomes the prothesis chapel and the south apsidal room the diakonikon.16 In essence his argument is that the function and location of  the original diakonikon change at some point in time after the Early Byzantine period. Furthermore, Mathews and Robert Taft have both argued that this ‘tripartite’ or triple sanctuary was not evident in Early Byzantine churches in Constantinople.17 Anne Michel also argues that in ‘most of  the typical churches in Palestine, the diakonikon cannot be identified as one of  the two small rectangular service rooms f lanking the apse, which could be entered from the eastern end of each aisles.’18 Certainly it seems unlikely that the diakonikon is located in an apsidal room in either the Constantinopolitan or Roman church plan if only because they do not have one. Nor is there any pattern of archaeological evidence to support the location of a diakonikon or the rite of prothesis in an apsidal room in the Syrian church plan. The second group think that the diakonikon is located near to the main entrance of  the church. They argue that as the congregation entered the church they would hand their gifts over to the deacons, and the deacons then selected from these gifts those that would be prepared for liturgical use.19 There are at least three problems with this argument. First, many churches simply do not have a room at or near to the main eastern entrance to the church. Secondly, if  this argument holds true, then those churches with Constantinopolitan church plans that have multiple major entrances would require multiple rooms located at each of  the major entrances where 16 17 18 19

Crowfoot (1941), 51. Mathews (1971), 105–106. Also Taft (1997), 1–35, and (1998), 53–87 and also (2004), 33. See Michel (2007), 583–584. On liturgical grounds Taft argues that the diakonikon should be located at the entrance to the church. See Taft (2004), 32. See also Biernacki and Pawlak (1997 [1998]), 38, and footnote 4. And see also Soteriou (1941), 76–100, and also Stričević (1958–59), 59–66.

A second focus of  liturgical activity

87

the congregation could deposit their gifts, and there is no supporting archaeological evidence in this regard. Lastly, and as noted previously, repeated patterns of artefactual deposition indicate that there is only one focus of  liturgical activity in the church in the area of  the sanctuary, and another second focus in adjacent side chapels, where they exist, and so there is no archaeological evidence that the rite of prothesis took place in a room inside the church or at the entrance.20 Alternatively, Mathews’ analysis of  Ordo Romanus I argues that there is no specific location for preparation of  the Eucharist in Roman church plans. He contends that there are three areas of activity associated with the Roman liturgy: 1. The secretarium where the pope, and perhaps the clergy, prepare for the processions. 2. The senatorium and matroneum where the pope and of ficiating clergy gather for the of fertory and communion ceremonies. 3. The confessio where the pope or of ficiating clergy receive the of ferings of  the parish administrators. He argues that in Rome the: […] early Roman liturgy was unusual in that a distinct place for the preparation of  the gifts did not exist, but the congregation themselves at the beginning of  the Mass of  the Faithful brought of ferings of  bread and wine to the sanctuary barrier at the eastern end of either aisle and presented these to the clergy. From these of ferings a portion was simply selected and placed on the altar for the Eucharistic sacrifice without any accompanying ceremony.21

There is archaeological evidence that domestic artefacts such as amphorae, plates and bowls were deposited in sealed destruction layers in some churches, and these are considered in more detail in Chapter 5. Mathews 20 This would also rule out arguments that the skeuophylakion or diakonikon was a curtained-of f area of  the church, or made of wood, and which would have left no trace in the archaeological record. See Taft (1998), 54–55. 21 Mathews (1971), 156.

88

Chapter 4

further argues that the wings of  the sanctuary that extend across the side aisles were used by the clergy for the of fertory and communion ceremonies, i.e. the matroneum and senatorium.22 However, even this scenario still requires a room or building – the secretarium – where the clergy could first prepare and then travel in procession to and from the church. A third group argue that the diakonikon is located outside the church building in a side chapel, and the clergy processed to and from the church as they transferred the Eucharist and liturgical implements from here to the church sanctuary, and then retraced their steps at the conclusion of  the service. This argument is based largely upon analysis of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, but also on Crowfoot’s analysis of church sites at Gerasa.23 This view is countered by Gordana Babić who thinks that side chapels functioned as commemorative chapels, and this argument is based upon dedicatory inscriptions found in some side chapels.24 However Crowfoot discounts the use of side chapels as commemorative chapels on the basis that only one inscription at Gerasa lends any credence to this hypothesis, and this sole inscription at the Cathedral chapel only notes that it was decorated by certain benefactors.25 This observation is supported by evidence from the catalogue that while there are a few dedicatory inscriptions on some mosaic pavements in side chapels from the catalogue (Table 6.1–6.4) there are far more dedicatory inscriptions on mosaic pavements in churches. It is also evident that apart from the burials in the side chapel at Mola di Monte Gelato in Italy all the other burials are located within the church building. This observation is supported by Eric Ivison’s analysis of  later mortuary practices from A.D. 950–1453 which notes that:

22

Mathews states that in an occidented church the location of  these would be reversed. Mathews (1962), 93, and also footnote 67. 23 See Mathews’ architectural and liturgical analysis in Mathews (1971). But see also Taft’s defence of  the location of  the skeuophylakion to the north of  the Hagia Sophia in Taft (1997), and (1998), and also (2004). Also Crowfoot (1938), 171–262. See also Descoeudres (1983), 160–164. 24 The use of side chapels as mortuary chapels is examined in Babić (1969). 25 Crowfoot (1938), 178.

A second focus of  liturgical activity

89

The Capital model and Database for Constantinople (and elsewhere), show that individuals of  high status had the privilege of  burial within churches.26

Ivison further observes: […] that burial location was a crucial factor connected with hierarchy, for churches acted as sacred epicentres of cemeteries in which burial iuxta ecclesiam was desirable and apud ecclesiam the most desired. These locations satisfied the spiritual need to be as close as possible to relics and the μνημóσυνα regarded as essential for salvation, but were also a social display to the living which enhanced and af firmed the status of  those belonging to the same institution or family […] Archaeological and primary sources agree that the naos, particularly towards the east and on the south sides of churches, was considered the most prestigious and desired locations.27

If  Ivison’s observations are correct then it is dif ficult to support any argument that these side chapels functioned solely as commemorative chapels, unless there is evidence that the side chapel is built over the tomb of a saint or contains their relics, or even those of  the individual commemorated by inscriptions. Furthermore, excavations at Gerasa in Jordan led Crowfoot to think that side chapels or parekklesiai functioned as diakonika in which the rite of prothesis was conducted. Here he observed that the Cathedral and Bishop Genesius churches had south chapels, while the churches of  St. Theodore, Procopius and St. Peter each had a separate north chapel.28 He observes that these match instructions in the Testamentum regarding the location of  the diakonikon, and as each has a nave and a raised chancel they could also serve as a prothesis chapel. He envisaged gifts being brought to the chancel rail in these side chapels and the sacrament then being laid out on the altar table in the chapel, prior to being transferred in procession into the church. Mathews points out that in Constantinople, Maximus, the protégé of  Pseudo-Denis, describes the transfer of  the bread and wine into the

26 Ivison (1993), 66. 27 Ivison (1993), 272. 28 Crowfoot (1938), 177–179, and footnote 6.

90

Chapter 4

church from a location that is outside the building.29 It is this transfer of  bread and wine by the clergy from an external skeuophylakion or diakonikon which Taft associates with the Byzantine rite.30 Mathews links this liturgical procession to the multiple entrances associated with the monoapsidal Constantinopolitan church plan, but specifically with the two entrances located either side of  the apse.31 It is the presence of  these entrances to either side of  the apse that prevents the chancel barrier around the Π-shaped sanctuary from extending across the side aisles for it would otherwise block the movement in and out of  the church through these entrances. There is ef fectively a direct relationship between the human activity, i.e. performance of  the liturgy, and the structure that hosts it. Mathews argues that there is an exterior north chapel, also called a skeuophylakion or diakonikon, at the most famous of all Byzantine churches, the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, where the clergy could vest prior to transferring the wine and bread for the liturgy to the altar and return to after the liturgy to devest.32 Taft further argues that there is evidence for a skeuophylakion or diakonikon at three of  the churches in the vicinity of  Hagia Sophia, i.e. Hagia Eirēnē, Hagios Theodōros of  Sphōrakios where it is also located to the north of  the church building, and also at Hagia Theotokos in Blachernai where it might have been located to the southeast of  the church in a manner reminiscent of  the south chapel (Table 4.3) in the Syrian church plan.33 If  the skeuophylakion or diakonikon at the Hagia Sophia, the greatest of all Byzantine churches, is located to the northeast of  the church during the Early Byzantine period then would other Early Byzantine church plans not share this feature? If  this argument is correct then other Early Byzantine churches should also have a side chapel that function as a skeuophylakion or diakonikon, i.e. there should almost be a symbiotic relationship between 29 Mathews (1971), 157. 30 For a discussion of  the skeuophylakion in Constantinople see Taft (2004), 179, and 182–191. See also Ovadiah (1970). 31 Mathews (1971), 158–159, and 178–179. 32 Mathews (1971), 178–179, and figure 49. 33 Taft (1997), 12.

A second focus of  liturgical activity

91

the two. Where excavations at church sites extend beyond the walls of  the church there is often evidence for either a separate north side chapel (sometimes attached to the north aisle) or a side chapel attached to and accessed from the south aisle, and the available archaeological evidence from the catalogue of sites does appear to support this symbiotic relationship between church and side chapel.34 There are clearly some discordant voices in regard to the location of  the diakonikon during the Early Byzantine period, but does the catalogue provide any archaeological evidence in relation to the location and function of  the diakonikon?

Archaeological evidence As noted in the previous chapter, archaeological evidence indicated that there are two foci of  liturgical activity (figure 4.1) in the majority of church sites examined. The first focus is located in the sanctuary of the church. The archaeological evidence includes post holes for altar table legs and chancel screen post holes that demarcate the area of  the sanctuary, whole or fragmentary liturgical artefacts such as chancel screens and posts, sometimes postholes for ciboria columns, and perhaps a synthronon or occasionally also a bishop’s chair. The second focus of  liturgical activity is indicated by much the same evidence, i.e. post holes for altar table legs, chancel screen post holes that demarcate a sanctuary, and whole or fragmentary liturgical artefacts such as chancel screens. Although not evident in all excavated side chapels, often due to the condition of  the site, this second focus of  liturgical activity occurs in side chapels or parekklesiai adjacent to church buildings that Crowfoot has argued functioned as a diakonikon-cum-prothesis chapel (figure 4.2) during the Early Byzantine period. Each of  the three church 34 Taft (2004), 178–203, and (1997), 1–35, and also (1998), 53–87.

(i) Typical Constantinopolitan church plan Diakonikon (north side chapel)

(ii) Typical Syrian church plan

Diakonikon (south side chapel)

North

Diakonikon (north side chapel) (iii) Typical Roman church plan

Figure 4.2. Location of diakonikon, and also the second focus of  liturgical activity in side chapels.* * These typical church plans and layouts are based upon St. Theodore in Gerasa (Constantinopolitan), see Kraeling (1938) plan XXXIII; Kursi (Syrian), see Tzaferis (1983), plan 4; and also Khirbat al-Karak and SS. Peter & Paul in Gerasa (Roman), see Delougaz and Haines (1960), plate 51A and Kraeling (1938), plan XXXIX.

A second focus of  liturgical activity

93

plans is examined in turn to determine what archaeological evidence exists in relation to the location of  the diakonikon, and whether there is supporting evidence that the rite of prothesis might have taken place there. (i) Constantinopolitan church plans This church plan matches Mathews’ architectural analysis of  Constantino­ politan church sites in relation to Constantinopolitan liturgy and just as Hagia Sophia has a separate north chapel or skeuophylakion (diakonikon) so too do the church sites with a Constantinopolitan church plan in the catalogue. There are four churches in the catalogue with a Π-shaped sanctuary and an entrance to either side of  the protruding apse and three of  these have an adjacent separate north chapel (Table 4.2). The church of  St. Theodore also has an attached south chapel. It is not known whether the fourth church has a side chapel, i.e. the Synagogue Church, as the excavation did not extend much beyond the church walls. The location of  these north chapels matches the location for a diakonikon as set out in the ‘Testament of  Our Lord’ by St. Clement of  Rome. Two of  these four church sites have evidence for a second focus of  liturgical activity in their side chapels. Both of the side chapels at the church of  St. Theodore have evidence of post holes for a chancel screen, and the side chapel at Shavei Zion has post holes for altar table legs. However, one of  the most extraordinary sites in the catalogue is the Propylaea Church at Gerasa. There is an inscription (Inscription no. 331) in a circular chamber located along the north edge of  the atrium which describes it as a diakonia.35 This circular diakonia is identical in size and plan to the skeuophylakion at Hagia Sophia, and Taft observes that some Byzantine sources interchange ‘the terms diaconicon, skeuophylakion and

35

Inscription no. 331: ‘[…] by the will of  God the diaconia was built in the month of  Artemisius in the thirteenth indiction in the year 627.’ See Welles (1938), 485–486 and Kraeling (1938), plan XXXV and plate LXIIb. Also Crowfoot (1938), 228.

94

Chapter 4

prothesis.’36 The only dif ference between the two is that the skeuophylakion at Hagia Sophia is located to the northeast of  the church and that of  the Propylaea Church is positioned along the northern portico of  the atrium. The two sites are contemporary with each other. The circular chamber of  the Propylaea Church at Gerasa in Jordan is dated to A.D. 565 by Inscription no. 331, and Taft notes that the church of Hagia Sophia was re-dedicated on 24 December A.D. 537, which indicates that the two churches are contemporary with each other. All of  these factors suggest strongly that these north chapels function as a diakonikon for these Constantinopolitan churches and that the rite of prothesis also took place there. Of great importance here is that these sites provide no succour to the countervailing arguments in respect of  the location of  the diakonikon or rite of prothesis. None has a room to either side of  the protruding apse where pastophoria might be located, and only the church of  St. Theodore has a room adjacent to the western entrance to the church where a diakonikon might have been located, but it also has two side chapels. Mathews also notes that in Constantinople none of  the church sites he examined had auxiliary rooms attached to the narthex.37 These Constantinopolitan church sites dif fer considerably in layout from both the Roman and Syrian church plans. This might be expected given that the Byzantine rite that Mathews and Taft associate with these Constantinopolitan church plans dif fers from both the Syrian liturgy and the early liturgy of  Ordo Romanus I. However the same investigative methods used to identify the location of  the diakonikon in Constantinopolitan church sites can also be used to interrogate the evidence at both of  these other church plans to determine where the diakonikon is located at these sites.

36 37

Taft (2004), 182, 202 and footnote 77. Mathews (1971), 108.

A second focus of  liturgical activity

95

(ii) Roman church plans Of  the sixteen church sites in this group nine have a separate north chapel (sometimes attached to the north aisle) and one has a south chapel attached to the south aisle. Of  these sites the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev has an almost complete chancel screen, three have evidence for post holes from a chancel screen, and one has evidence for liturgical artefacts and also possibly an altar table. The archaeological evidence indicates that it is entirely possible that the rite of prothesis was conducted in at least some of  these side chapels. It is also possible that the remaining six sites also have a detached side chapel but we do not know for certain because the excavation at each of  these church sites was largely restricted to the area of  the church building. Of particular interest, however, are two church sites at ‘Evron and Khirbat al-Karak. Firstly, the church at ‘Evron has Inscription no. 2 in a room north of  the church acknowledging the gift of  two diakonika: Lord, remember your servant Alexon, the deacon, who lay in repose, father Sobbinos and Alexon, the deacon, and Germanos … the reader, who contributed the two diaconica.38

The second site at the church of  Khirbat al-Karak is less ambiguous and it has an inscription located in its north chapel which names it as the diakonikon: + [Christ help] Theodore Magister and Theophilas and Basil. [Gloriously] was executed the paving of  the communicating hall and of  the diaconicon under [the pious] presbyters Elijah and Basil in Indiction 7, year 591 (A.D. 528/29).39

The evidence from these two inscriptions augments that of  the inscription at the Propylaea Church with the Constantinopolitan church plan, and 38 Tzaferis (1987), 39, and figure 1. 39 Kraeling (1960), 53. See also Delougaz and Haines (1960), plate 51A, and Haines (1960), 17. Sodini and Kolokotsas comment upon this inscription, as well as those at Mount Nebo and Zahrani. See Sodini and Kolokotsas (1984), 148–149.

96

Chapter 4

taken together these inscriptions provide evidence that these north chapels or parekklesia functioned as a diakonikon in churches with these two plans, i.e. Constantinopolitan and Roman. Furthermore these inscriptions complement archaeological evidence from post holes for altar table legs and chancel screen posts and from whole or fragmentary liturgical furniture deposited in side chapels. There is compelling archaeological evidence that the rite of prothesis took place in north side chapels or parekklesia (or in one case a south chapel attached to the south aisle) that belong to Early Byzantine basilical churches, i.e. liturgical performance extends beyond the church into the side chapel. The available archaeological evidence from the catalogue (Table 4.4) does appear to contradict Mathews’ argument that in those churches with a Roman church plan a portion of  the gifts was simply transferred straight to the altar table in the church for the liturgical performance. However, given that Mathews argues for the presence of a secretarium where the pope and the clergy prepare for processions and, given that the liturgical implements and Eucharist are themselves sacred or sacrosanct, this procession should proceed from a building with a sanctuary of its own. Is it possible that this secretarium functions as a diakonikon at this time and the rite of prothesis took place there? (iii) Syrian church plans Of  the seventeen church sites in this group (Table 4.3) there are eight with a south chapel attached to and accessed from the south aisle and two others with a separate north chapel. It is entirely possible that the remaining seven sites also have a side chapel but we do not know because the excavation at each of  these church sites was restricted to the area of  the church building. Three of  these side chapels have evidence for chancel screens from post holes, and one of  these has evidence for an altar table from post holes for table legs and a ciborium. The archaeological evidence indicates that it is entirely possible that the rite of prothesis was conducted in at least some of  these side chapels. If  the north chapel at sites with a Constantinopolitan and Roman church plans functioned as a diakonikon then is it possible

A second focus of  liturgical activity

97

these south chapels attached to the south aisles of  Syrian church plans served the same purpose? The archaeological evidence from inscriptions is not as robust in this Syrian church plan as for the other two church plans. There is however a partial inscription in the south chapel at Kursi that appears to confirm that it functioned as a diakonikon.40 There is also some indirect support that the south chapel in Syrian church plans functioned as a diakonikon from the alignment of  the ambo to the south of  the nave entrance into the sanctuary in many of  these churches (Table 3.4) that provides a liturgical bias towards the south of  the church building. This is in contrast to the bias towards the north in the Roman church plans wherein the ambo is usually located north of  the nave entrance to the sanctuary and the predilection for a separate north chapel at these sites. Mathews thinks that the Syrian rite indicates that the diakonikon is located to the right of  the south entrance and the sanctuary and the location of a south chapel in this Syrian church plan matches that analysis. Mathews associates the Monophysite Syrian rite with Pseudo-Denis, who is described as the mentor to Maximus, and also with the late fourth century commentary by Theodore of  Mopsuestia.41

Are there two types of diakonika? There is another curious observation to be made in regard to these side chapels. Of  the eighteen church sites where the plan of  the side chapel is evident (Table 4.2 to 4.5) it has been observed that twelve are apsidal

40 See Tzaferis (1983), plan 4, plate XI.5, XII.3 and XII.1. 41 Krautheimer (1986), 93, 135, 141 and 201. Also Angold (2002), 40. However Taft ascribes Pseudo-Denys to the late fifth century, and the Mystagogia of  Maximus to A.D. 628–630. See Taft (2004), 39 and 43. For Theodore of  Mopsuestia see McLeod (2009).

98

Chapter 4

chapels, and the remaining six are rectangular in plan. There appears to be no obvious structural or architectural reason for this disparity. There is a further anomalous observation to be made in respect to some of  the side chapels with a rectangular plan. For example, the side chapel at the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev has a column base in situ against its eastern wall, which has two postholes just in front of it.42 This is situated where the altar table would normally be located, and Tsafrir has suggested a possible reconstruction in which the column base would support the rear of an altar table and the two postholes would contain posts that would support the front of  the altar table.43 However, there are problems with this reconstruction in that, although these marble altar tables are relatively thick around the edge, they are extraordinarily thin along their entire base. They are therefore strongest at each of  the four corners where two thick edges come together, and this is why they are normally supported by a leg at each corner. It would be dif ficult to imagine that a column base would support an altar table in the prescribed manner, and so an alternate explanation should be sought. There was also a 0.50m square column base recovered along the eastern wall of the rectangular side chapel at Horvat Beit Loya in Israel. Intriguingly, Bishop Genesius church has a column base to the rear of  the chancel in both the north and south aisles. At Khirbet el-Beiyûdât there is a 0.50m diameter column drum inserted into the mosaic pavement just to the south of  the ambo, and Hananya Hizmi thinks that an upturned two-handled stone bowl recovered beside it rested atop the column.44 There was also a ‘stone roller some 60 cm long and 25 cm in diameter’ discovered here in the side chapel, which has the remnants of  four legs from an altar table in it.45 Lastly, the Large Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum also appears to have a rectangular south chapel and among the finds at this site is a fragment 42 43 44 45

Tsafrir (1993), 299 and figure III.117. Tsafrir (1993), 299. Hizmi (1990), 250. The side chapel is the rectangular room F to the southwest of  the church. Hizmi suggests this column was used to roll a clay roof. See Hizmi (1990), 245–264, and (1993), 155–163.

A second focus of  liturgical activity

99

of a limestone pedestal (SF 8092) that again suggests that it supported something, such as a statue. If  these column bases were not used to support altar tables in these side chapels, or to roll clay roofs, then what other function could they have served? The church of  Khirbet el-Beiyûdât has niches for statues in the western wall of its forecourt that are a metre wide and a column drum to support a statue was found in situ within the northern niche. This might suggest an alternative use for these column bases in side chapels on church sites, i.e. to support statues. There is an interesting reference by Ernst Kitzinger to a statue of  Christ at Paneas in a place of public veneration near to a fountain, which was later relocated to the diakonikon of a church. Kitzinger further states that the ‘critical role of  this period [between Justinian and Iconoclasm], and particularly of  the sixth century, in the development of idolatric beliefs and practices among Christians was recognized long ago.’46 The apparent association between some of  these side chapels with a rectangular plan and a column base would suggest that the ritualised activities that occur here dif fer to some extent from those that occur in conventional side chapels with an apsidal plan. There is no direct evidence in the 46 Kitzinger (1954), 83–150. Mango also notes that translation of relics occurs as early as the fourth century, first of  St. Babylas in Antioch and then in A.D. 356/7 multiple translations of  SS. Timothy, Andrew and Luke to the Church of  the Holy Apostles in Constantinople as it vied with Rome and its twin protectors of  SS. Peter and Paul. See Mango (1990), 52–53. McNamara argues that the cult of relics or martyrs was universal at this time and there is evidence for its practice in Gaul in the life of  Genovefa (A.D. 423–502) where a triple portico adjoined the church and was decorated with images of patriarchs, prophets, martyrs and confessors. There is also a reference in the life of  Queen Radegund of  the Franks (A.D. 525–587) that in A.D. 568/9 she sought wood from the True Cross from the Byzantine emperor Justin II, and also asked the patriarch of  Jerusalem for a relic of  ‘Blessed Mammas.’ See McNamara et al (1992), 36–37, and 95–97. Also commented upon by Tzaferis. See Tzaferis (1987), 51. The triapsidal church at Horvat Hesheq has a miniature ara or pagan votive altar with a Latin inscription: ‘[So-and-so, priest] of  Juppiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus, Venus and Mercurius (or preferably: vicimagister, i.e. chief of a quarter of  the city), decurion of  the colony, for his own salvation and (for the salvation) of  his wife Julia Curria and of  his sons, fulfilled his vow with a willing heart.’ Di Segni (1990), 379–390.

100

Chapter 4

catalogue that these column bases or pedestals supported statues, let alone statues of  Christ or of  the emperors, but their presence does prompt the question as to what their role or purpose was. This phenomenon of apsidal and rectangular plan side chapels is also observed in later churches, although this may not be for the same reason, and further research is required into the function of each of  these disparate plans.47

Conclusion In this chapter the intention was to locate the diakonikon, and to assess whether the second focus of liturgical activity in side chapels might support Crowfoot’s argument that the rite of prothesis took place in side chapels, which functioned as diakonika during the Early Byzantine period. Robert Ousterhout has observed that if: […] our analysis of a Byzantine church is restricted to topographical analysis, or to the liturgical organization, or if it is simply presented as a backdrop for historical events or in the context of patronage, we have not learned all we can from it. We should be able to read a building, just as we read a text, as a historical document, for it can tell us much about the society that produced it. The details preserved in buildings and their sites can help reconstruct a context for the Byzantine churches of  Constantinople – whether that context is the surrounding neighbourhood, the site’s history, or the lives of  the artisans who formed a significant element of  the urban workforce. All were a part of  the fabric of  the city.48

47 For example, while discussing later Romanesque church plans, O’Keefe notes that ‘Chapels, square-ended or apsidal, also project from the east walls of  the transepts.’ See O’Keefe (2007), 16. 48 Ousterhout (2000), 250. See also Hodder (1991), 4. Burguière makes a similar argument in respect to historical research: ‘These representations produce the social world (Foucault’s hypothesis) or are produced by it (the sociological hypothesis). In both cases, history can be deciphered as a text, or rather, can be read entirely in the unfolding of discursive thought.’ See Burguière (2009), 197.

A second focus of  liturgical activity

101

Ousterhout’s exhortation for archaeologists to ‘read a building’ is particularly prescient due to the Byzantines’ predilection for setting commemorative inscriptions in mosaic pavements. There have been conf licting opinions as to the location of  the diakonikon, but there are six known church sites (Table 4.1) with inscriptions that refer to the location of  the diakonikon, and five of  these are found in side chapels.49 It has literally been possible to read the inscription on a mosaic pavement to determine that five of  these side chapels function as diakonika. There are a further four known inscriptions that are not yet included here in this research. Jean-Pierre Sodini has previously mentioned the inscriptions at Mount Nebo and Khirbat al-Karak, and he also refers to another in a side chapel at Zahrani.50 Yet another is referred to in a side chapel at Ashkelon by Eliya Ribak.51 Joseph Patrich refers to an inscription in a side chapel at Beth Yareh, and also to another inscription at the Holy Zion Church.52 Yet another inscription located in a side chapel at Kourion exhorted the faithful to ‘vow and pay unto the Lord our God […]’ and as such is identified by the architects to 49 The other two inscriptions are at Mount Nebo and Horvat Hanot. At Mount Nebo, Inscription 6: ‘By the divine grace, in the days of our wholly God-loving father and shepherd, Elias the bishop, the sacred diaconicon of  God was reconstructed and adorned, with the holy pool of rebirth and the beautiful ciborium, through the ef forts of  Elias, hegumen and priest, during the consulate of  the clarissimi Flavius Lampadius and Flavius Orestes, in the time of  the 9th indiction, in the month of  August of  the year 425 of  the province. For the preservation of  Muselius the advocate and of  Sergô (his) wife, and for the preservation of  Philadelphus the advocate and of  Gothus the advocate and of all the members of  their households.’ For the inscription see Di Segni (1998), 429–430. For the mosaic inscription in the diakonikon-baptistery see Alliata and Bianchi (1998), 168–171, and plate 53. At Horvat Hanot the inscription states: ‘Under the most pious and God-loving Theodore, priest and hegumen, was done all the work of  the “addition” (προσθήκη) of  the apse and of  the painting and facing with marble of  the end-wall of  the presbytery, together with the diaconicon, from the foundations, in the month of  April of  the 12th indiction.’ Shenhav suggests possible dates matching the 12th indiction are A.D. 563/4, 578/9 and 593/4. See Shenhav (2003), 269–272. See also Di Segni (2003), 273–276. 50 Sodini and Kolokotsas (1984), 148–149. 51 Ribak (2007), 129. 52 Patrich (2006), 352.

102

Chapter 4

be a diakonikon.53 These eleven inscriptions provide unambiguous evidence for the location of  the diakonikon during this period. The archaeological evidence from the Early Byzantine basilical church sites in the catalogue is compelling, and it indicates that in both Constantinopolitan and Roman church plans their north chapels function as diakonika, and in Syrian churches their south chapels appear to fulfil the same function (see figure 4.2). The case is strengthened by the absence of any competing evidence from inside these churches that might support an alternate location. Furthermore the second focus of  liturgical activity in many of  these side chapels (figure 4.1) strongly supports Crowfoot’s argument that the rite of prothesis took place in these parekklesiai, and it is likely that the clergy processed into the church with the Eucharist to perform the liturgy and then retraced their steps to the side chapel at the conclusion of  the ceremony. As previously noted, Crowfoot has argued that the diakonikon and the rite of prothesis are later relocated into apsidal rooms from the Middle Byzantine period onward. However this hypothesis needs to be supported by the same stringent archaeological evidence from inscriptions and repeated patterns of  liturgical artefactual deposition if it is to be accepted. As a result of  this research a further important observation has been made about these side chapels. Of  the nineteen church sites where the plan of  the side chapel is evident (Table 4.2–4.4) it has been observed that twelve are apsidal chapels (63%), another six (31%) are rectangular in plan, and that of  the Propylaea Church is circular. Furthermore, many of  these side chapels with a rectangular plan had either column bases or column drums. Kitzinger has observed that a statue of  Christ had been relocated to a diakonikon, but further research would be required to determine whether the column drums in side chapels with a rectangular plan supported similar statues. Some problems have been encountered. Not all excavations extend beyond the church building and so it is not known whether these sites

53

Megaw (2007), 142–146, 161, figure 1.Z, and plate 1.19a. Also Inscription no. 39 in Michaelidou-Nicolau (2007), 385.

103

A second focus of  liturgical activity

have side chapels, and not all side chapels have provided evidence for altar tables or chancel screens. In some respect this might be a positive factor in that at least at these sites it could be possible to return and conduct a more detailed excavation to test the hypothesis that Constantinopolitan and Roman churches are associated with separate north chapels and Syrian churches with south chapels attached to and parallel with the south aisle. Also, where rectangular side chapels occur, then the hypothesis that these are associated with column drums can be likewise tested. Despite these problems the archaeological evidence from the six inscriptions that these side chapels functioned as diakonika is compelling, and evidence from the second focus of  liturgical activity that the rite of prothesis occurred there is quite remarkable. The homogeneity of each of  the three church plans, i.e. Constantinopolitan and Roman with separate north chapels, and Syrian churches with south chapels attached to the side aisle reinforces this evidence. The next step is to analyse the repeated patterns of domestic artefactual deposition in relation to the three church plans and their associated side chapels, and this follows in the next chapter. Table 4.1. Diakonikon inscriptions Church

North chapel

Propylaea Church, Gerasa, Jordan

Inscription no. 331: ‘the diaconia’

Const.

‘Evron, Israel

Inscription no. 2: ‘two diaconica’

Roman

Khirbat al-Karak, Israel

Inscription no. 1: ‘the diaconicon’

Roman

Inscription 6: ‘the sacred diaconicon’

Not known

Mount Nebo, Jordan Kursi, Gergesa, Israel Horvat Hanot, Israel

South chapel

Other location

Partial inscription

Church plan

Syrian ‘the diaconicon’

Not known

104

Chapter 4 Table 4.2. Constantinopolitan church plans Site

North chapel

Propylaea Church, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

St. Theodore, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

South chapel

Apsidal plan

Yes

Yes

Column base

Post-holes for chancel screen

Rectangular plan

Synagogue Church, Gerasa, Jordan Shavei Zion, Israel Site

Yes Post-holes for altar table

Liturgical artefacts

Propylaea Church, Gerasa, Jordan St. Theodore, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

Synagogue Church, Gerasa, Jordan Shavei Zion, Israel

Yes

Table 4.3. Syrian church plans Site

North chapel

South chapel

Apsidal plan

Cathedral Church, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

Yes

Large Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgaria

Yes

Eastern Church, Herodium, Israel

Yes

Kursi, Gergesa, Israel

Yes

Rectangular plan

Yes

Yes

105

A second focus of  liturgical activity Old Church, Old Dongola, Sudan

Yes

St. Stephen’s, Horvat Be’ershemca, Israel

Yes

Yes

St. John the Baptist, St. George, and SS. Cosmas & Damianus, Gerasa, Jordan Ostrakine, Israel Central Basilica, Ostrakine, Israel Coastal basilica, Ostrakine, Israel Central Church, Herodium, Israel Horvat Berachot, Israel Khirbet ed-Deir, Israel Horvat Beit Loya, Israel

Yes

Yes

North Church, Nessana, Israel

Yes

Yes

Small Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgaria

Yes

Yes

Monastery of  Martyrius, Israel

Yes

Yes

Site Cathedral Church, Gerasa, Jordan Large Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgaria Eastern Church, Herodium, Israel

Post-holes for altar table Yes

Column base

Post-holes for chancel screen

Liturgical artefacts

Yes

Also post-holes for ciborium

106

Chapter 4 Site

Post-holes for altar table

Column base

Mastaba or raised platform

Post-hole or recess in mastaba

Post-holes for chancel screen

Kursi, Gergesa, Israel Old Church, Old Dongola, Sudan St. Stephen’s, Horvat Be’er-shemca, Israel St. John the Baptist, St. George, and SS. Cosmas & Damianus, Gerasa, Jordan Ostrakine, Israel Central Basilica, Ostrakine, Israel Coastal basilica, Ostrakine, Israel Central Church, Herodium, Israel Horvat Berachot, Israel Khirbet ed-Deir, Israel Horvat Beit Loya, Israel North Church, Nessana, Israel

Yes, 0.50m square column base along east wall Yes

Small Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgaria Monastery of  Martyrius, Israel

Yes

Liturgical artefacts

107

A second focus of  liturgical activity Table 4.4. Roman church plans Site

North chapel

South chapel

Apsidal plan

Rectangular plan

‘Evron, Israel

Yes

Yes

North Church, Rehovot-inthe-Negev, Israela

Yes

Yes

Khirbat al-Karak, Israel

Yes

Poreč, Croatiaa

Yes

Procopius Church, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

Yes

SS. Peter & Paul, Gerasa, Jordanb

Yes

Yes

Santa Cornelia, Italyc

Yes

Yes

Mola di Monte Gelato, Italyc

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Haluza Cathedral, Israela Petra, Jordana Pella of  the Decapolis, Jordana Horvat Hesheq, Israela Nahariya, Israel Khirbet el-Waziah, Israel Santa Liberato, Italyc St. Mary’s or South Church, Nessana, Israel

Yes

Yes

108

Chapter 4 Site

Post-holes for altar table

Column base

Post-holes for chancel screen

Liturgical artefacts

?

Yes

Yes

Yes

‘Evron, Israel North Church, Rehovot-inthe-Negev, Israela Khirbat al-Karak, Israel Poreč, Croatiaa Procopius Church, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

SS. Peter & Paul, Gerasa, Jordan

Yes

Santa Cornelia, Italyc Mola di Monte Gelato, Italyc Haluza Cathedral, Israela Petra, Jordana Pella of  the Decapolis, Jordana Horvat Hesheq, Israela Nahariya, Israel Khirbet el-Waziah, Israel Santa Liberato, Italyc St. Mary’s or South Church, Nessana, Israel a Denotes five known Syrian-to-Roman church conversions and also Khirbat al-Karak, which is converted from a protruding monoapsidal church. b There is a niche in the apse of  the north chapel. c Denotes that there are written references that indicate that the church belongs to a papal estate.

Chapter 5

Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches

The catalogue of church sites has been compiled together with those artefacts thought to be deposited in sealed layers while these basilicas functioned as churches, or as they were abandoned.1 Domestic artefacts were deposited at fourteen church sites that are split equally between either a Syrian or Roman church plan. The presence of  these domestic artefacts (Table 5.1–5.3) in churches has received little attention, and yet their presence hints that activities other than mere performance of  the liturgy occurred, at least at some Early Byzantine church sites. The nature of  these artefacts suggests that food was brought into these churches and deposited, stored, distributed and possibly also consumed on site, i.e. communal meals were eaten in church. The presence of cooking pots is particularly problematical in that, although plates and bowls might possibly be used during liturgical performance, there is no reference to cooked food in this ceremony. The aim of  this chapter is to analyse these domestic artefacts for repeated patterns of deposition that might ref lect institutional behaviour. Also to determine what artefacts are deposited and where, and together with what other artefacts. Then to consider some textual references to non-liturgical activities in Early Byzantine churches to determine whether these might account for the deposition of at least some of  these domestic artefacts. This chapter will also consider whether the deposition of domestic artefacts coincides with the location of  the diakonikon as determined in the previous chapter.

1

Mulholland (2011), Appendix I.

110

Chapter 5

Archaeological evidence Before examining the artefactual evidence for repeated patterns of artefactual deposition it is important to consider the nature of  that evidence and how it was collected. The artefacts compiled in the catalogue (Table 5.1–5.3) are those thought to be deposited while each basilica functioned as a church or as it was being abandoned. Each archaeological report has also been analysed to determine what abandonment processes were involved (Table 2.2–2.5). There are sealed fire destruction layers at fourteen of  the forty-seven church sites in the catalogue. There is some evidence that many of  these were functioning as churches when the fire occurred and that they were rapidly abandoned, e.g. at Nahariya scorch marks were discovered in the mosaic pavement where hanging oil lamps had fallen, which indicates that they were still lit when they fell to the f loor. At Nahariya and the Petra church some of  the liturgical furniture was robbed after the fire, but the rest of  the church had a relatively undisturbed sealed fire destruction layer. The church of  Shavei Zion also had a sealed fire destruction layer, as had Ostrakine, the monastery church of  Martyrius, Khirbat al-Karak, Khirbet el-Waziah, and both the Large and Small Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum. Much of  the artefactual data came from these nine church sites. A further eleven sites were destroyed by earthquakes and had sealed destruction layers, with the exception of  Pella of  the Decapolis and some of  the churches in Gerasa where the church was later cleared of debris and re-used. At others, such as Kursi and Khirbet ed-Deir the site was abandoned and remained undisturbed until they were excavated. There are three other sites where domestic artefacts were recovered in the church, i.e. Horvat Berachot, Horvat Hesheq, and the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev. At Horvat Hesheq the archaeological report does not indicate how it came to be abandoned, but there is no suggestion of post-abandonment occupation. Horvat Berachot appears to be abandoned for a period and then there is evidence for Umayyad period artefacts in the crypt. The North Church was abandoned and there is limited evidence for

Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches

111

post-abandonment activity in the area of  the atrium from Kufic inscriptions and some Umayyad pottery fragments. The analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition is restricted to Constantinopolitan, Syrian and Roman church sites. The artefacts (Table 5.1–5.3) recovered in Early Byzantine basilical churches consist in the main of domestic pottery such as amphorae, f lasks and jugs, plates and bowls. Although there are cooking wares deposited at some sites, there is no indication that food is cooked or prepared in the churches, i.e. no evidence for hearths or ovens, and so cooked foodstuf fs must have been transferred into the church from elsewhere.2 The repeated presence of amphorae and cooking wares in some of  these churches suggests that raw and cooked foodstuf fs were either stored or consumed on site, or both. The artefactual evidence (Table 5.1–5.2) can be subdivided into two main categories, i.e. those that are associated with either liquids or solids. Evidence for the use of  high status imported wares is further examined (Table 5.3) to determine whether there might be any patterns of distribution or use that might identify relationships between churches hitherto unnoticed.

Liquids There were twenty-one amphorae and two jugs/f lasks, deposited in the south aisle of  the triapsidal church site in Petra (Table 5.1–5.3), and many of  them were intact or restorable. Fiema states that wooden decking, benches and dumps of planks were also recovered in the south aisle and there is

2

During its construction phase the Large Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum did have an oven built into the f loor, but this was sealed over when the f loor of  the church was subsequently laid.

112

Chapter 5

some evidence from bones and pots that food was consumed here.3 At Petra there is, however, some indication that there are paving slabs stored in the nave, and it may be that some sort of construction (or dismantling?) work was being carried out at the site. Fiema also argues that the chancel screens were destroyed through vandalism prior to the fire that consumed the church. These artefacts were covered by a sealed fire destruction layer at Petra, and this makes it unlikely that this dining activity is due to postabandonment squatter activity during the Muslim Umayyad period. There were amphorae, both whole and fragmentary, recovered inside another six churches in the Levant and from the two churches at Nicopolis ad Istrum in Bulgaria, and these were often deposited in the south aisle. Bag jars are a type of amphorae thought to be used to transport Palestinian wine and their presence in the area of  the chancel-apse, north and south aisle at the churches of  Kursi, Horvat Berachot, Khirbat al-Karak and the North Church of  Rehovot-in-the-Negev might be taken as evidence that wine is possibly collected and stored in this area of  the church.4 These bag jar amphorae were also found in the east portico/narthex and north chapel of  the latter two churches, and the east portico at Kursi as well. Fragments of  Gaza amphorae were also recovered at the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev in the area of  the chancel-apse and in the north chapel, and these are also associated with the wine trade. Khirbat al-Karak had Greyware amphorae throughout the church and north chapel, but not in the nave. It is interesting that there are amphorae associated with the storage of wine in two north chapels, given that in the last chapter these were found to function as diakonika in both Constantinopolitan and Roman plan churches. This pattern is repeated in the distribution of amphorae fragments (Class 47 and Greyware) at the Large Basilica in Nicopolis ad Istrum in the south aisle, and in the nave, east portico/narthex and also in the south chapel (Greyware, Gaza and East Mediterranean Keay IIIb) of  the Small

3 4

Fiema refers to other church sites that have artefacts stored in the south aisle, such as the Church of  Bishop Isaiah at Jerash. See Fiema (2001), 80–91. Peacock and Williams (1986), and also referred to as LR 5/6 in Dark (2001), 39.

Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches

113

Basilica. The church at Petra also had Greyware amphorae in the south aisle, and at Nahariya there were whole or restorable amphorae in the south aisle as well, and these were also found in a sealed fire destruction layer.5 While bag jars and Gaza amphorae are thought to be associated with the wine trade, there is as yet insuf ficient evidence to link the other types of amphorae specifically with wine. Should the other types of amphorae recovered on these sites be used to store or transport other liquids such as olive oil or fish paste, or solids such as edible snails or olives, then this would add another interesting dimension to this archaeological evidence.6 Although irrespective of  their primary use they could, of course, still be re-used to store wine on church sites. Amphorae are far too large to be carelessly lost or mislaid, which suggests that their deposition in these church sites must have been deliberate. Perhaps the most obvious pattern here is the association between amphorae and the south aisle at many of  these sites and this may be for practical purposes, i.e. the churches are generally aligned east-west and so amphorae stored in the south aisle are less likely to receive direct sunlight.7 Their presence in the area of  the chancel screen barrier demarcating the area of  the sanctuary could also be construed as supporting Mathews’ analysis of  Ordo Romanus I in relation to Roman church plans that the congregation brought gifts up to the chancel barrier. Given that it is more likely that the laity brought in jugs full of wine rather than full amphorae, then their gifts of wine might be collected and stored in these amphorae at the chancel barrier. These amphorae could also function as serving stations from which to dole out surplus unconsecrated wine for the communal meal or for distribution to the poorer members of  the congregation, and this hypothesis gains some support from the presence of jugs or f lasks in the vicinity of amphorae at many of  these church sites.

5 6 7

Possibly two-handled holemouth, or Anatolian stamnia. The contents of an amphora in the atrium at Ostrakine consisted of edible snails. Heated alcohol and oils can give of f a vapour, which can ignite to cause an explosion.

114

Chapter 5

Solids Domestic artefacts associated with solids include bowls/plates and cooking vessels. Whole or fragmentary bowls/plates have been recovered in the nave of  the Small Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum, and in the south aisle and south chapel at the Large Basilica also. They were also found in the south aisle at Nahariya, and the chancel-apse of  Horvat Berachot, and in the east portico/narthex at Kursi. It is possible that these bowls and plates were used to distribute the bread and wine during the liturgical performance, and perhaps gold and silver patens and chalices were only used in wealthier churches. Furthermore many sites have evidence for glass fragments, many of which are from glass oil lamps, but some glass fragments may also belong to glass chalices, bowls and plates.8 What is apparent from the archaeological evidence (Table 5.1–5.3) is that bowls/plates and cooking pots and lids were often recovered in the vicinity of amphorae. For example, at Nahariya, where the site had a sealed fire damage layer, they were neatly stacked adjacent to the amphorae and this would suggest that they were used together. Whole or fragmentary cooking pots and lids were recovered in the north aisle, nave and south aisle at Kursi, the nave at Khirbet ed-Deir, and in the chancel-apse, nave, south aisle, east portico and north chapel at the North Church in Rehovot-in-the Negev. There is no evidence for cooking on site, i.e. no hearths or ovens, and these cooking pots might provide evidence that cooked foods were brought to the church to be consumed there or in the immediate vicinity. In this respect there is an interesting feature at Pella where table supports were built alongside the south wall of  the south aisle.9 There is no other evidence to provide some clue as to why the table supports were constructed there, or what purpose the table (2m × 1m approximately)

8 9

‘Communion cups’ were recovered at the Large Basilica in Nicopolis ad Istrum. See for example GL788/7444 and GL793/7438 in Shepherd (1999), 297–378. Smith and Day (1989), figure 25.

Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches

115

served, and on its own it is an anomalous feature. It might be indicative of  food consumption or storage in the church. However, although individual instances such as this are interesting, the focus here is upon repeated patterns of artefactual deposition that are more likely to ref lect institutional activity across two or more sites. The presence of  these cooking vessels might also be taken as evidence that the congregation consumed a communal meal or agape in these churches. However it is also possible that the clergy shared some of  the produce from monastic estates with their congregation, because at least some of these churches appear to be monastic. The presence of these cooking vessels does appear to confirm that paraliturgical or non-liturgical activity took place in at least some churches at this time.

Imported wares There is another very interesting feature evident in the archaeological evidence (Table 5.3) which suggests that analysis of imported wares and finewares could yield some useful results. During the Early Byzantine period, Greywares appear to be associated with Constantinople.10 They were found at both the Large and Small Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum in Bulgaria. But they also occur at Petra and Khirbat al-Karak in the Levant. In direct contrast to this, the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev stands out because it has Phocaean Red Slip Ware (PRSW), African Red Slip Ware (ARSW) and Cypriot Red Slip Ware (CRSW) imported fine wares and the latter two are imports from the West. There is a third group of church sites that have neither type of imported wares. It is possible that these imported wares ref lect trade networks, but they might also ref lect patriarchal or regional networks of churches, such that agricultural produce from land or marine resources owned by a group of 10

Dark (2001), 33–34.

116

Chapter 5

churches is transported to other churches in the group. We do have evidence from typika and other sources that there are identifiable groups of af filiated churches, and that some churches either inherit or are gifted land.11 Should these imported wares ref lect trade or transfer of goods between networks of af filiated churches then further sophisticated analysis could yield some interesting results that impact upon other aspects of church design and decoration. However, it is also noticeable that where excavations extend beyond the church building the site’s overall character, insofar as ceramic evidence is concerned, may change and other imported wares occur that are not found in the church.

Historical evidence Many of  the early liturgies refer occasionally to artefacts or materials used during the liturgy, and a close reading of  these texts enables a list to be compiled of  the those artefacts and materials used. From F.E. Brightman a list of  liturgical, and associated artefacts, used in the Coptic and the Syrian or Jacobite liturgy includes the cross and gospels, the book of  the dead, chalice, f lagon, jar, paten, washbasin, sponge, gold censer, veil, altar covering, and oven. The list of materials includes eulogia, būchri, wine, water, incense, oils, hyssop, spice and sweet spices such as incense, myrrh and cinnamon.12 11 12

Thomas and Hero (2000). See for example MacCoull (2000), 55; Miller (2000), 67, 70 and 75; Miller (2000), 101; Karlin-Hayter (2000), 120–124. See also Taft (1998), 66–67. For the chalice, paten and veil: ‘And again removing the veils, that is the covering of  the mysteries, he places that of the paten on the south, and that of the chalice on the north […].’ From the Liturgy of the Syrian Jacobites in Brightman (1896), 72–73. For incense: ‘He burns incense and says.’ See Brightman (1896), 75. For a washbasin: ‘And he washes the tips of his fingers in water […].’ From the Liturgy of the Syrian Jacobites in Brightman (1896), 82. For the sponge: ‘And when he drinks from the deaconess the

Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches

117

Artefacts associated with the Constantinopolitan liturgy include: paten (also referred to as a discos), chalice, lance, spoon, thurible, ripidia, f labella

wine that has been mingled […] And when he drinks the deaconess […] And wiping the chalice with a sponge.’ From the Liturgy of the Syrian Jacobites in Brightman (1896), 107. For hyssop: ‘THOU SHALT PURGE ME WITH HYSSOP AND I SHALL BE CLEAN: […] I WILL WASH MY HANDS IN INNOCENCY […].’ From the Liturgy of the Coptic Jacobites in Brightman (1896), 145. For the use of gold censer and spice: ‘This is the censer of pure gold bearing the sweet spice that was in the hands of Aaron the priest while he of fered a sweet savour upon the altar.’ From the Liturgy of the Coptic Jacobites in Brightman (1896), 150. For oils, incense and altar coverings: ‘Pray for those who have charge of the sacrifices, the oblations, the first fruits, the oils, the incense, the coverings of the altar […].’ From the Liturgy of the Coptic Jacobites in Brightman (1896), 170. For the chalice, paten, f lagon, jar, censer and oven: ‘Then he takes a little fire from the oven and puts it in the censer and takes a little incense […] And then he goes down from the oven with the paten in his right hand and the censer in his left and takes them in to the altar […] He puts the paten in the recess on the right of the altar and hangs the censer on its place. Then he goes out of  the altar to the place of the deacon to mix the chalice. First he brings a f lagon of choice wine […] and pours the wine into the chalice […] Then he takes a jar of water and pours it into the chalice […] He takes the f lagon of wine and pours it into the chalice […].’ From the Liturgy of the Nestorians in Brightman (1896), 251. For the cross and gospels: ‘And going outside the sanctuary the priest lades the deacons with the cross and the gospels […].’ From the Liturgy of the Nestorians in Brightman (1896), 268. The book of the dead: ‘He proceeds and recites the book of the dead’ and also: ‘(The eulogia) […] The people kiss the cross in the priest’s hands and the eulogia, which was baked along with the būchri, is distributed by one of the priests or deacons standing at the nave entrance of the baptistery. During the distribution is said the prayer of Mary.’ From the Liturgy of the Nestorians in Brightman (1896), 275 and 304. Brightman states that the whole loaf was formerly called eulogia. The use of ‘eulogia’ here appears to mean the blessed bread distributed at the end of the liturgy. See Brightman (1896), 571–572, 577, and 597. Būchri are ‘a round leavened […] cake […] stamped with a cross-crosslet and four small crosses. Called būchra ‘first-begotten.’ See Brightman (1896), 572. For sweet spices: ‘(The prothesis) (The curtain is drawn to and so remains during the whole prothesis) […] In this abode of votive of ferings in the Lord’s temple assembled together for the mystery of worship and supplication for the holy sacrifice, here round about in the upper hall of this altar we form a choir, with sweet spices. Favourably receive our prayers as the savour of sweet-smelling incense, myrrh and cinnamon […].’ From the Liturgy of the Armenians in Brightman (1986), 418–419.

118

Chapter 5

or fans, lavabo basin, and also veils.13 There are a number of other artefacts revealed in Romano’s analysis of the Ordo Romanus I, which include chrism, candelabra, crosses, belts, cruets, prayer mats, straws, and saddle-horse.14 To this list should be added the censer associated with censing the area of  the chancel-apse, and the Gospels and cross that are associated with the rite of  the Little Entrance, as well as lighting for the ritual. Taft also relates that the skeuophylakion at the Hagia Sophia had an oven.15 Of  these items only f lagons and jars (or amphorae) can be said to be recovered with any frequency at the church sites from the catalogue. Also one censer was recovered in each of  the side apses at Nahariya, and other pottery objects at some sites where the site archaeologist speculates that they might have served as censers. The organic materials referred to have not been recovered at any of  the church sites investigated. Interestingly, Michael Solovey has argued that proskomide or prothesis can be traced to the Apostolic Age prior to Christianity being recognised by the state as a religion.16 This involved the preparation of  Eucharistic gifts of  bread and wine by the deacons for liturgical services. The surplus bread and wine, as well as other gifts, were set aside for the communal meal, which is also referred to as the agape or ‘love banquet.’ Taft agrees that surplus gifts were eaten by clergy, and also distributed among the faithful, but neither one provides any indication as to where this activity occurred or what artefacts were used.17 Demetrios Constantelos’ analysis of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom makes reference to a panegyric by a mid-fifth century orator who describes a public assembly honouring St. Thekla.18 In this text the partaking of  the ‘holy mysteries’ is immediately followed by a banquet and the distribution of gifts, presumably surplus wine and bread donated by the laity for the 13 14 15 16 17 18

Derived from the ‘procession of  the gifts.’ See Taft (2004), 30–31, and 206–210. Brightman equates the discos with a paten. See Brightman (1896), 595. Romano (2007), 202–205 and Table 3.5. Taft (2004), 191. Solovey (1970), 103. Taft (2004), 25. Constantelos (2001), 139–140.

Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches

119

service, to the pious or needy by the attendants of  the sanctuary. Once again the specific location for this sequence of events is not provided and the juxtaposition of  the ‘holy mysteries’ and the banquet could conceivably suggest that the meal took place either in or near to the church. In the West, Radegund (A.D. 518–587) established the custom of giving banquets for Christian travellers.19 Her successor, Abbess Leubevera, continued this practice and boasted that in her convent the food was plentiful.20 The assumption would be that these banquets took place in a refectory, but there is no specific location provided in this text. It also refers to ‘enrolled paupers’ who were fed by Radegund twice weekly, on Thursday and Saturday. These paupers are referred to as ‘matricula’ which suggests ‘a regular role of dependent paupers.’21 Again the location of  the twice-weekly feast is not provided. There are, however, a number of references to dining on church sites in Constantinople. In Mathews’ analysis of  the tenth century De Ceremoniis, he observes that a breakfast table was set in the galleries for the patriarch and emperor after the liturgy in the fourth century Hagia Mōkios. He also comments that Justinian’s sixth century Theotokos church in Pēgē had an attached apartment which included a dining room. Mathews also notes that the emperor and patriarch breakfasted with personal friends at the Church of  the Apostles, and the emperor and patriarch dined together in the Hagia Sophia.22 There are issues about extending the habits of  the emperor in the capital to all churches in the empire. Also in this context, while the tenth-century typikon of monasteries such as the Lavra monastery or the ninth-century typikon of  the monastery of  St. John Stoudios in Constantinople specifically place the consumption of  food in the refectory, the eighth-century typikon of  John for the monastery of  St. John the Forerunner on Pantelleria makes no reference

19

Radegund was queen of  the Franks and married to Clothar I, and she later became an abbess. McNamara et al (1992), 64–65. 20 McNamara et al (1992), 64–65. 21 McNamara et al (1992), 77 and 86, and footnote 62. 22 Mathews (1971), 132–133.

120

Chapter 5

to a refectory.23 Instead the text’s wording could be taken to indicate that the monastic community dined in the church itself; or it may just relate to how the monks are to move round the monastery, as there is no reference to place: Likewise, let [the monks] approach the communion, the meal, and the salutation according to the order of  their status […] Again, whenever a superior summons [the brethren] to meals, let [them] all move as [if  they were going] to church. Should a few arrive before the others, let them wait a short while for their fellow [monks], and then start reciting the prayer over the food.24

The meaning of  the text is opaque, as Mango notes of other texts, and the inclusion of a few extra words might have removed any ambiguity. Insofar as the Levant is concerned, there is a reference by Crowfoot to the hegumen at the fifth-century coenobium of  St. Euthymius who took his guests to the inner chamber of  the diakonikon for breakfast after they had viewed the treasures kept there.25 While the larger imperial institutions at Constantinople might have had provision for imperial apartments and galleries, there might be some suggestion then that, at least in Palestine, the inner chamber of  the diakonikon, or a room beside it, fulfilled the function of a communal dining area for clergy and some privileged guests. These texts indicate that at least one non-liturgical activity took place in several churches in Constantinople, i.e. a shared communal meal, possibly a successor to the agape.26 The question then is whether this activity was universal, regional or local in scope and whether it was replicated in smaller communal churches, particularly given that some of  the churches where this activity occurred were not monastic churches where one might have expected this type of communal activity. Other artefacts regularly deposited are the occasional coin and some assorted metal artefacts such as some bronze pendants or rings, although 23 Miller (2000), 109. Also Dennis (2000), 223. 24 My use of italics. See Fiaccadori (2000), 62 and 64. 25 Crowfoot refers to correspondence sent to him by Chitty. Crowfoot (1938), 178 and footnote 9. 26 Tsafrir (1993), 1. See also Solovey (1970), 103–104.

Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches

121

there appears to be no discernible pattern to their deposition. Glass fragments from oil lamps cannot strictly be considered as non-liturgical even though they may not be directly involved in the ceremony, and these will be considered in future research, e.g. the type of glass lamps and also the colour or hue of  the glass and its likely ef fect upon the church decoration and the observers.

Conclusion This thesis began with the observation that domestic pottery was found in two very dif ferent churches, i.e. the ‘cave church’ at the monastery complex of  Khirbet ed-Deir and the ‘pilgrim church’ referred to as the North Church of  Rehovot-in-the-Negev. Both of  these churches appeared to be rapidly abandoned, the former due to a roof  fall during an earthquake and the latter due to a fire.27 A series of questions were prompted by these observations. Were these isolated instances, or could the deposition of domestic pottery inside churches be a regular occurrence? Is it possible to identify repeated patterns of artefactual deposition that might ref lect institutional behaviour such as ritual activity? Furthermore, some analysts argued that in the Syrian and Byzantine rites the congregation brought gifts, primarily of  bread of wine, to the diakonikon and from which a portion was selected for the rite of prothesis. Or alternatively, that in Ordo Romanus I the gifts were brought into the church to the chancel barrier. If  this were the case then would this institutional behaviour be ref lected in evidence from repeated patterns of artefactual deposition inside churches, in rooms to either side of  the apse, or in side chapels adjacent to churches?

27 Khirbet ed-Deir appears to represent a Pompeii scenario in which a site is rapidly abandoned to leave artefacts deposited in the archaeological record where they would normally be used. See Schif fer (1995), 201–218.

122

Chapter 5

To facilitate like-for-like analysis between churches with the same plans the forty-seven church excavations in the catalogue were first placed in three groups with similar characteristics, and the remaining sites placed in an ‘indeterminate’ group. The three groups were labelled Constantinopolitan, Syrian and Roman church plans.28 The presence of deposits of domestic wares in Early Byzantine church sites has largely been ignored, and instead archaeological research has concentrated entirely on liturgical activity. However, there are a suf ficient number of church sites in the catalogue with enough artefactual evidence to identify some repeated patterns of artefactual deposition. The artefactual data (Table 5.1–5.2) is presented and analysed from each type of church plan, and only evidence from within the churches or the north/south chapel was analysed. However, no domestic pottery appeared to be deposited in the churches with a Constantinopolitan plan or their side chapels, and so there is no data to analyse for this group.29 Firstly, Syrian church plans (figure 4.2) are the only one to have a room to either side of  the apse, and they are also associated with a south chapel attached to the south aisle. Only two of  these sites (Table 5.1) had 28

29

These labels are attached because it is evident that there is a church plan common in Constantinople which shares common characteristics with the Constantinopolitan church plan found in the Levant, another church plan common in Rome that is also found in the Levant, and yet another that is common in Syria which is also found in the Jerusalem patriarchate. The reverse can also be said to be true, i.e. that of  the three common church plans in the Levant, one is also common in Syria, another in Rome, and yet another in Constantinople. This observation runs counter to Krautheimer’s view that there are regional architectural characteristics determined partly by building materials and techniques. See Krautheimer (1986), 96–97. Michel also argues that local materials (basalt, limestone and sandstone) and architectural traditions determined church plan. See Michel (2001), and also Kawe (2001), xii. Kaegi seems to think that treaties between the Muslim Umayyads and the Byzantines apply to all Byzantines, but is it possible that both the Umayyad and Byzantine negotiators were more discriminating than they are given credit for? Could the treaties allowing for evacuation of  the Levant apply to only one section of  the Byzantine community in the Levant, such as those Christians associated with the Byzantine rite and Constantinopolitan church plans? See Kaegi (2000), 97, 101, 165 and 175–176. Also Kaegi (2003), 219 and 244–245.

Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches

123

domestic pottery recovered in the chancel-apse or in a room to either side of  the apse. At Horvat Berachot the remains of a bag-shaped jar, a jug and a plate or bowl were recovered in the chancel-apse. Ostrakine is unusual in that large quantities of intact ceramics such as jugs and f lasks were recovered in the room north of  the apse, and many copper and bronze artefacts such as incense burners and also suspension chains for glass oil lamps were recovered in the room south of  the apse. This site appeared to continue in use into the late seventh or eighth century, and it may be that the rooms to either side of  the apse were used as storage rooms. Large numbers of amphorae (storage jars) were also found in the nave at Ostrakine. The remains of amphorae were recovered in the north aisle and east portico/narthex at Kursi, and amphorae in the nave and east portico/ narthex as well as the south chapel at the Small Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum, and amphorae in the south aisle at the Large Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum. Plates or bowls were also recovered in the nave and south chapel at the Small Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum, the south aisle at the Large Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum, the east portico/narthex at Kursi and the apse at Horvat Berachot. Finally, cooking vessels were recovered in the nave and each side aisle at Kursi and there are large numbers of cooking vessels recovered in the church at Khirbet ed-Deir, although no find spots are provided. The evidence from domestic pottery in churches with a Syrian church plan exhibits repeated patterns for the deposition of plates or bowls in some churches, but particularly for amphorae in the vicinity of  the nave and aisles. The only site where domestic pottery is found in the south chapel is at the Small Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum. A number of observations can be made in regard to this archaeological evidence from churches with a Syrian church plan. (i) There is no evidence in churches with a Syrian church plan for domestic pottery in any of  the rooms to either side of  the apse, with the notable exception of  Ostrakine which appeared to continue in use until the late seventh century. (ii) It appears highly unlikely that the congregation brought gifts of  large amounts of  bread and wine to the side chapels. Domestic

124

Chapter 5

pottery appears in the south chapel at only one site, i.e. the Small Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum. (iii) It appears far more likely that these gifts were brought into the church itself and the wine was collected, stored and distributed from amphorae located in the nave, south aisle or east portico/ narthex, and the location of plates and bowls mirrors this pattern. (iv) The deposition of cooking vessels at Khirbet ed-Deir and Kursi suggests that the gifts donated by the congregation extended to cooked foods to be consumed later by the clergy or after the liturgy by those assembled, or perhaps donated to the needy. Secondly, Roman church plans (figure 4.2) are the only type to have side apses to either side of  the main apse. Only three of  these sites (Table 5.2) had domestic pottery recovered in the chancel-apse or side apses, i.e. Khirbat al-Karak, Nahariya and the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev. At Nahariya the remains of a jug or f lask were found in the apse, and at the other two sites jugs or f lasks, plates/bowls and amphorae were found in either the main apse or side apses to the rear of  the chancel barrier. Large numbers of amphorae were recovered in the south aisle at Petra, Khirbat al-Karak and Nahariya. There was also a fragment recovered here in the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev. Whole or fragmentary amphorae and jugs or f lasks were also recovered at Rehovot in the nave and east portico/narthex and north chapel, and in the north aisle, east portico/narthex and north chapel at Khirbat al-Karak. Plates or bowls were recovered in each area of  the church at Khirbat al-Karak except for the nave, in the apse, south aisle, east portico/narthex and north chapel at Rehovot, and the south aisle at Nahariya. Cooking vessels were also recovered at Khirbat al-Karak in the side apses, side aisles, east portico/ narthex and north chapel, and at Rehovot in the apse, nave, south aisle, east portico/narthex and north chapel. A number of observations can be made in regard to this archaeological evidence from churches with a Roman church plan. (i) There is no evidence for the deposition of domestic pottery in either side apse, i.e. other than at Khirbat al-Karak. Therefore it

Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches

125

is highly unlikely that the side altar tables behind the T-shaped chancel barrier in churches with a Roman plan functioned as altaria, as envisaged by Romano.30 Romano had argued that the congregation placed gifts on altaria located in the side aisles for the first part of  the mass before a portion was transferred to the altar in the main apse. (ii) It would appear highly unlikely that the congregation brought gifts of  large amounts of  bread and wine to the side chapels in churches with a Roman church plan. Domestic pottery was recovered at two sites in the north chapel at both Khirbat al-Karak and the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev. However at both these sites, and also at Petra, Horvat Hesheq and Nahariya, there is evidence for amphorae and plates or bowls primarily in the south aisle, nave or east portico/narthex. The evidence at Khirbat al-Karak and Rehovot might support the transfer of smaller amounts of gifts to these side chapels. (iii) It appears far more likely that the congregation brought their gifts of wine and bread into the church and the wine was collected, stored and distributed from amphorae and jugs or f lasks located in the south aisle or nave. The archaeological evidence from Khirbat al-Karak, Petra, Horvat Hesheq and Nahariya and the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev is that amphorae, jugs or f lasks, and plates or bowls were deposited primarily in the south aisle, nave or east portico/narthex. Even though these sites largely pre-date the Ordo Romanus I by a century or more, this evidence agrees quite well with the range of vessels described in Ordo Romanus I such as the amulae used to deliver the wine, i.e. the capacity of an ama is given as 8.73 litres by Romano, a water container referred to as a fons, and a scif fus or large vessel used to deliver wine to the clergy and faithful.31 The deposition of plates or bowls in the same area would suggest that gifts of  bread are

30 Romano (2007), 286. 31 Romano (2007), 288.

126

Chapter 5

also collected and distributed from the same location together with the wine. (iv) The deposition of cooking vessels at Khirbat al-Karak and the North Church at Rehovot-n-the-Negev suggests that the gifts donated by the congregation extended to cooked foods to be consumed later by the clergy or after the liturgy by those assembled, or perhaps donated to the needy. However, in spite of  their dif ferent internal layouts the archaeological evidence from repeated patterns of artefactual deposition in churches with both a Syrian and a Roman church plan indicates that amphorae, jugs or f lasks and plates/bowls were deposited inside these churches primarily in the south aisle close to the chancel barrier. These repeated patterns of artefactual deposition provide compelling evidence that paraliturgical activity occurred in Early Byzantine basilical churches. The presence of amphorae, particularly from bag jar amphorae used to transport wine from Gaza, provides compelling evidence that wine was collected, stored and distributed primarily from the south aisle. The juxtaposition of jugs or f lasks, and bowls/plates in the same locations reinforces the perception that the congregation also brought their gifts of  bread into the church and these were collected and stored beside the wine. This archaeological evidence can be combined with other evidence from Chapter 3 and 4 to provide a compelling narrative to describe the nature of  this paraliturgical activity. As noted in Chapter 3, the Syrian and Roman church plans are both very dif ferent from each other. The configuration of  their sanctuary dif fers, i.e. the Syrian church plan has a Π-shaped sanctuary and the Roman church plan a T-shaped sanctuary. Furthermore, the former is typically associated with a south chapel attached to, and accessed from, its south aisle and the latter with a north chapel either attached to, and accessed from, the north aisle or adjacent to the north aisle. Evidence from whole or fragmentary liturgical furniture and from post holes for altar table legs and chancel posts for chancel screens indicated that there is a second focus of  liturgical activity located in these side chapels, which strongly suggests that the rite of prothesis took place there. In Chapter 4 epigraphic evidence from

Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches

127

inscriptions in five side chapels provides compelling evidence that the Byzantines referred to these side chapels as diakonika. Crowfoot’s identification of side chapels as both diakonika and the place where the rite of prothesis took place appears entirely justified. From this combination of evidence it can be deduced that at churches with both a Syrian and Roman church plan the congregation first brought gifts of wine and bread into church. These were collected and deposited primarily in the south aisle near to the chancel barrier. The second focus of  liturgical activity identified in side chapels, which have also been identified as diakonika, provides compelling evidence that the rite of prothesis took place there, and so it seems likely that a portion of  the gifts of wine and bread were transferred by the clergy from the south aisle of  the church to be prepared for the liturgy in the side chapel or diakonikon. This sequence of activity so far can be described as paraliturgical activity since it forms a necessary precursor to liturgical performance. It would seem likely then that after the rite of prothesis has been performed by the clergy in the side chapel or diakonikon the Eucharist is transferred to the church sanctuary in procession and placed upon the altar for the liturgical performance in the church. Upon completion of  the liturgy it would appear likely that the clergy would process back to the side chapel or diakonikon to where the liturgical implements are stored. If analysis by Mathews and Taft into the performance of  the Byzantine rite at the Hagia Sophia and other related Constantinopolitan church sites is correct, then it would appear that both paraliturgical and liturgical activity in churches with a Constantinopolitan, Syrian and Roman church plan were very similar at this time despite their very dif ferent plans and layouts. Krautheimer’s analysis allowed for the rite of prothesis to take place in the diakonikon for Byzantine churches, but in churches with a Syrian plan he thought the diakonikon was located in a room located to one side of  the apse and the rite of prothesis took place in the room to the other

128

Chapter 5

side of  the apse, but which was possibly a martyr chapel at some sites.32 The archaeological evidence does not appear to support his analysis of churches with a Syrian church plan. The archaeological evidence would need to be scrutinised in light of recent discoveries to determine whether his analysis of eighth century cross-domed churches is correct, i.e. that in Byzantine usage the diakonikon was located in the south room adjoining the chancel and the north room serves as the prothesis where the species of  the Eucharist are kept. Cooking vessels were recovered inside churches at four sites, two of which have refectories where one might expect to find these artefacts.33 The presence of cooking vessels at so many church sites suggests either that cooked food was brought by the congregation to be consumed later by the clergy or that the liturgical service was followed by a shared community meal or agape, or perhaps even to be redistributed to those in need as an act of charity. If  the food were consumed within the religious surroundings of a church then this would elevate this behaviour into a ritual activity. This activity might also be considered as paraliturgical if it can be described as a necessary or commonplace post-liturgical ritual to conclude the intensely spiritual liturgical performance. If not, then certainly it can be considered as a non-liturgical activity that appears to have taken place in the church or in its vicinity. The appearance of imported pottery (Table 5.3) at six sites is of interest. Constantinopolitan Grey Ware amphorae were recovered at two church sites with a Syrian church plan, but these two sites at Nicopolis ad Istrum are in Bulgaria and so these items have not travelled far from their place of manufacture. However their presence at three sites with a Roman church plan at Petra, Khirbat al-Karak and the North Church at Rehovot-inthe-Negev reveals some interesting trade links between the Levant and Constantinople at this time, especially at a time when Gaza was thought 32

33

Krautheimer had thought that if  ‘the species of  the Eucharist chosen from among these of ferings were prepared in a special ceremony before being brought to the altar […] the preparation took place in the diaconicon, which thus would also have served as a prothesis.’ See Krautheimer (1986), 298. Khirbet ed-Deir and the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev.

Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches

129

to be exporting wine in bag jar amphorae, and so one can only wonder what were the contents of  the Grey Ware amphorae. Of particular interest is the presence of  high status imported fine wares such as ARSW, CRSW and PRSW at the ‘pilgrim church’ of  the North Church in Rehovot-inthe-Negev, which emphasise its international links, and particularly with the West. This type of analysis could be used in further research to better understand familial, social, religious and trade links within the Byzantine Empire. This research has established that there is suf ficient evidence for the deposition of domestic artefacts in Early Byzantine basilical churches to identify repeated patterns of artefactual deposition. However there is a strong case to make, firstly, that all artefacts need to be scientifically recorded and published and, secondly, close scrutiny of  these artefactual deposits can reveal far more about activities in these church sites than has previously been considered possible. These Early Byzantine church sites represent a finite and scarce resource and it is imperative that excavations at these sites are conducted by specialists who have suf ficient funding to adequately excavate, record and publish their findings. While this chapter has examined primarily evidence from ceramic artefacts, there remain other artefacts that might be used to determine whether there was segregation of  the sexes in churches, and in the next chapter these will be examined.

130

Chapter 5 Table 5.1. Whole and fragmentary artefacts: Syrian church plans Site

Room to north of apse

Chancel-apse

Room to south of apse

North aisle

Pottery: 7th–8th century ‘candlestick’ type oil lamp, complete Metal: 1 bronze pendant frag

Amphora: 1 bag jar (?) Cooking vessel: 1 closed ribbed brown cooking pot

Cathedral Church, Gerasa, Jordan Kursi, Gergesa, Israel

Ostrakine, Israel

Horvat Berachot, Israel

Pottery: Large assemblage of intact ceramics Jug/f lask: 1 jug or f lask Metal: 1 bronze oil lamp

Metal: ‘many copper and bronze objects including chains for suspending candelabra and incense burners’ Amphora: 1 bag jar Plate/bowl: 1 bowl or plate Jug/f lask: 1 jug or f lask Metal: 1 small copper hook 1 elongated iron ring

Khirbet ed-Deir, Israel Large Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgariaa Small Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgaria

Glass: 1 frag. utility glass Metal: 0.0411m long iron fragment

Glass: 1 frag. utility glass 48 frags Coin: 1 coin

131

Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches Site

Nave

South aisle

East portico/ narthex

Cathedral Church, Gerasa, Jordan

South chapel Glass: 0.13m high × 0.08m rim diameter and 0.086m greatest diameter (stem 0.066m long) Type B goblet-shaped pale blue glass oil lamp fragment with a plain stem < 10 fragments Type F green and also bluish wine glass, 0.042– 0.045m diameter foot and 0.007– 0.012m diameter stem – illustration from no. 28 (31)

Kursi, Gergesa, Israel

Cooking vessel: Cooking vessel: 1 closed ribbed 1 lid brown-red cooking pot 1 open ribbed cooking bowl

Ostrakine, Israel

Amphora: Hundreds of storage jars Coin: 2 + (2 gold) many coins Metal: 1 bronze lamp stand supporting oil lamp 1 bronze scales 1 monkey-shaped weight 1+ bronze weights, chains and containers with remains of ropes Ivory: Ivory knife & objects

Amphora: 1 bag jar (?) Plate/bowl: 3 bowl or plate Coin: 2 coins

132

Chapter 5 Site

Nave

South aisle

East portico/ narthex

Horvat Berachot, Israel Khirbet ed-Deir, Israel

Glass: 1 Type B 1 misc. frag. utility glass

Pottery: 0.25m diameter × 0.15m base fragment of pottery jar (see above)

Large Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgariaa

Glass: 3 suspension oil lamps 4 Type B 57 misc. 1 4th–6th century ‘Communion cups’ – rim and lower part of natural coloured, freeblown stemmed goblet with pushed-in base, hollow tubular base ring, and plain stem 1 4th–6th century ‘Communion cup’ – base of a stemmed goblet, with a pushed-in base, hollow tubular base ring and ball knop. Natural coloured, and free-blown Metal: 6 iron nail frags 1 iron spike

Amphora: 3 Grey Ware & 1 Class 47 amphora 1 East Gaulish cup 2 cups Plate/bowl: 3 bowl or plate Glass: 381 misc. utility glass frags. Coin: 10 coins Metal: 2 iron frags 2 lead frags Bone: 0.062m long × 0.006m wide bone point fragment 0.01m diameter worked bone pin head

Glass: 23 misc. utility glass frags. Coin: 2 coins Metal: 5 spiked loops 4 iron nails 6 iron frags

South chapel

133

Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches Site

Nave

South aisle

Small Basilica, Amphora: Nicopolis ad 1 Grey Ware & Istrum, Bulgaria 1 Gaza amphora Plate/bowl: 3 bowl or plate Glass: 5 frag. utility glass Coin: 4 coins Metal: 4 bronze artefacts 5 iron tools 15 iron nail frags 13 iron frags Bone: 0.039m long × 0.006m thick episcopal bone pin fragment 4 bone pin frags

East portico/ narthex Amphora: 1 Grey Ware & 1 East Med. Keay LIIIb amphora Coin: 1 coin Metal: 4 nail frags 2 iron frags

South chapel Amphora: 1 Grey Ware (?) amphora Plate/bowl: 1 bowl or plate 2 fine ware 8 rim 1 ware 39 rim 1 coarseware 1 frag Pottery: 2 loom weights 1 ostracon 3 oil lamp frags Glass: 3 frag. utility glass Coin: 1 coin Metal: Bronze wire frags 5 nail frags 2 iron frags Bone: 0.033m long × 0.002m thick worked bone needle fragment

a Denotes that there are written references that indicate that the church belongs to a papal estate.

Table 5.2. Whole and fragmentary artefacts: Roman church plans Site Khirbat al-Karak, Israel

North apse Amphora: 4 bag jar 2 Grey Ware Plate/bowl: 2 bowl or plate 3 bowl/plate Jug/f lask: 1 jug or f lask Cooking vessel: 1 pot 1 lid

Chancel-apse Amphora: 5 bag jar

South apse Amphora: 10 bag jar 1 amphora 3 Grey Ware Plate/bowl: 7 bowl or plate 3 bowl/plate Jug/f lask: 1 jug or f lask Cooking vessel: 11 pot Glass: 1 utility glass frag.

North aisle Amphora: 26 bag jar 10 Grey Ware Plate/bowl: 4 bowl or plate 1 bowl/plate Jug/f lask: 1 jug or f lask Cooking vessel: 4 pot 1 lid

134

Chapter 5 Site

North apse

Chancel-apse

South apse

North aisle

Petra, Jordan

Glass: 1 Type B & 1 misc. frag. Coin: 1 coin Metal: 3 iron frags from polycandelon 1 iron ring & attached frags 1 pierced iron bar 1 iron tool

Glass: 3 utility glass frags Coin: 3 coins

North Church,a Rehovot-in-theNegev, Israelb

Amphora: 1 bag jar 1A 5 Gaza amphorae 2 ARSW Plate/bowl: 5 bowl or plate Jug/f lask: 6 jugs or f lasks Cooking vessel: 1 globular variant A 1 globular variant B 3 cooking bowl Glass: 3 + Type B and 4 misc. utility frags. 3 concave glass plates decorated with human images

Jug/f lask: 2 jugs or f lasks Coin: 1 coin

SS. Peter & Paul, Gerasa, Jordan Nahariya, Israel Horvat Hesheq, Israel Khirbet el-Waziah, Israel

Metal: Incense burner

Jug/f lask: 1 jugs or f lask

Metal: Incense burner

Pottery: 2 oil lamp

135

Other activities in Early Byzantine basilical churches Site

Nave

South aisle

East portico/ narthex

North chapel

Amphora: 33 bag jar 3 Grey Ware Plate/bowl: 11 bowl or plate 5 bowl/plate Jug/f lask: 3 jugs or f lasks Cooking vessel: 1 pot 2 lid Metal: 1 iron horseshoe

Amphora: 19 bag jar 1 Grey Ware Plate/bowl: 4+ bowl or plate 1 bowl/plate Cooking vessel: 2 pot Coin: 1 coin

Khirbat al-Karak, Israel

Plate/bowl: 1 bowl or plate

Amphora: 34 bag jar 8 Grey Ware Plate/bowl: 17 bowl or plate Jug/f lask: 1 jug or f lask Cooking vessel: 12 pots Glass: 2 utility glass frag. Metal: AE cross, probably part of oil lamp 1 AE candelabra frag

Petra, Jordan

Glass: 1 glass frag Metal: Polycandelon frags 6 iron frags 2 lead frags

Amphora: 5 Grey Ware 7 four-handled red ware 5 red ware 1 brown ware amphorae Jug/f lask: 2 jugs or f lasks Glass: 1 Type B; 2 misc. frags. Coin: 5 coins Metal: 1 gold foil frag 1 bronze polycandelon frag 10 assorted iron frags

136

Chapter 5 Site

North Church,c Rehovot-in-theNegev, Israeld

Nave Amphora: 1 bag jar 1D 1 Class 44 amphora Cooking vessel: 1 cooking bowl 1 lid Coin: 1 coin

South aisle

East portico/ narthex

North chapel

Amphora: 1 amphora Plate/bowl: 2 ARSW 3 bowl or plate Jug/f lask: 2 jugs or f lasks Cooking vessel: 1 globular variant B

Amphora: 2 bag jar 1A 3 bag jar 1C amphora 1 CRSW 2 Coptic RSW Plate/bowl: 3 bowl or plate Jug/f lask: 5 jugs or f lasks Cooking vessel: 3 globular variant A 1 globular variant B 1 globular variant C Glass: 1 Type B & 1 bottle

Amphora: 1 bag jar 1C 2 Form 2 1 Gaza amphora Plate/bowl: 1 PRSW 1 bowl or plate Jug/f lask: 1 jug or f lask Cooking vessel: 1 globular variant B 1 cooking bowl Coin: 1 coin

SS. Peter & Paul, Gerasa, Jordan Nahariya, Israel

Glass: 1 iron nail

a Room to rear of north apse: 1 Gaza & 1 Class 44 amphora, 1 Class 44, 1 ARSW, 1 bowl or plate, and 2 jugs or f lasks, and 1 utility glass fragment. Room to the rear of  the south apse 2 bag jar 1A, 2 Gaza, 3 Class 44 & 2 other amphorae, 3 Class 44, 1 PRSW, 2 bowls or plates, and 1 globular variant A; 2 globular variant C, 1 cooking bowl, & 2 lids and also 2 Type A & 2 glass bottle fragments and one coin. b Denotes five known Syrian-to-Roman church conversions and also Khirbat al-Karak, which is converted from a protruding monoapsidal church. c Room to rear of north apse: 1 Gaza & 1 Class 44 amphora, 1 Class 44, 1 ARSW, 1 bowl or plate, and 2 jugs or f lasks, and 1 utility glass fragment. Room to the rear of  the south apse 2 bag jar 1A, 2 Gaza, 3 Class 44 & 2 other amphorae, 3 Class 44, 1 PRSW, 2 bowls or plates, and 1 globular variant A; 2 globular variant C, 1 cooking bowl, & 2 lids and also 2 Type A & 2 glass bottle fragments and one coin.

138

Chapter 5

Table 5.3. Imported pottery (Grey Ware or Constantinopolitan Ware, PRSW, ARSW, CRSW & Coptic RSW. Also Gaza & bag jars are included for Nicopolis ad Istrum)a Loci

Rehovotin-theNegev

Rear of north apse

1 Class 44; 1 ARSW

Rear of south apse

3 Class 44; 1 PRSW

Large Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum

Small Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum

Petra

Nahariya

North apse/ north apsidal room Chancel-apse

2 Grey Ware

2 ARSW

South apse/ south apsidal room

3 Grey Ware

North aisle

10 Grey Ware

Nave

1 Class 44

South aisle

2 ARSW

Narthex/east portico

1 CRSW; 2 Coptic RSW

1 Grey ware amph.; 1 Gaza amph. 3 Grey Ware amph.; 1 Class 47 amph.; 1 East Gaulish cup

5 Grey Ware amph.

4 Late Roman Ware (?)

1 Grey Ware amph.; 1 Eastern Med. amph.

North chapel/ diakonikon North chapel narthex South chapel

Kh. al-Karak

8 Grey Ware

3 Grey Ware

1 Grey Ware

1 PRSW 1 Grey Ware amph.

a Dark (2001), 33–34. Also Gaza & bag jars are included for Nicopolis ad Istrum.

Chapter 6

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes in Early Byzantine basilical churches?

The purpose of  this chapter is to examine whether there is archaeological evidence for segregation of  the sexes in Early Byzantine basilical churches in the catalogue of sites. If  this archaeological evidence exists, then this will be cross-referenced with repeated patterns of deposition for domestic pottery from the previous chapter to determine whether there is any relationship between the two sets of evidence. First, some of  the current established views on the segregation of sexes within the Early Byzantine Church are reviewed. The primary focus is upon research conducted by Mathews and Taft who have both analysed textual references to segregation of  the sexes in relation to both architectural and archaeological evidence. Then some historical references to women in the Early Byzantine Church are considered to determine whether they might provide any further evidence for segregation of  the sexes at this time. Then the archaeological evidence (Table 6.1–6.7) will be scrutinised for any indication that the sexes were segregated. When designing the database and constructing the Tables of artefacts for this research, allowance was made for two columns labelled ‘male’ and ‘female’ and those artefacts that might be assigned to either category marked of f  for analysis.1 These artefacts were compared against artefacts included in a recent museum exhibition on women in Byzantium, and also to textual references mentioned above.2 However the archaeological evidence also includes grave goods in biologically sexed graves, burials, inscriptions and images. This is a complex research area that requires a multi-stranded approach which 1 2

Mulholland (2011), Appendix II. Pomerantz (2003), and Kalavrezou (2003), 13–32.

140

Chapter 6

meets broad guidelines set by others working on gender in archaeology, such as Roberta Gilchrist, who has supported a multivariate approach. Gilchrist argues that: The most sophisticated readings of gender have been developed from multiple lines of evidence, combing, for example, the use of spatial, iconographic, and environmental data, together with analogic sources. This deployment of parallel lines of evidence allows the discernment of ambiguity and contradiction. Further, the diachronic study of gender should be emphasised, encouraging readings of gender through lives and time.3

For example she praises the ‘more discerning use of direct historic analogy, employing ethnohistorical or historical sources’ by Spector in her work on the Native American Hidatsa, which inf luenced attempts to assign artefact correlates for men’s and women’s work. In a similar vein, data on both males and females was collated for this chapter. It is of equal importance to identify evidence that men used a church as it is to determine that women used it, and also to determine whether they shared this space or were segregated. In essence, the burden of proof must be applied equally to both sexes, rather than to adopt a default position that all spaces are occupied by males unless proved otherwise, or to simply consider the role of women in isolation.

The segregation of  the sexes Current works of note, at least from the art historical and historical perspective, are a recent volume that introduces a historical focus to gender in Byzantium, an exhibition at Harvard University’s Arthur M. Sackler

3

Gilchrist (1999), 41 and 149. See also Schif fer (1995), 55–66, and LaMotta and Schif fer (2002).

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes

141

Museum and also the accompanying book, on Byzantine women.4 From an archaeological perspective, the volume on gender in Byzantium is useful in determining how archaeology might play a role in this evolving area of research and how it might be usefully integrated within the folds of gender studies. Similarly the book about the exhibition reveals the current consensus on which artefacts may be considered to be female gender indicators, even though these artefacts are displayed and considered out of archaeological context. In an extensive piece of research, Angeliki Laiou, notes that there is evidence that women in the Byzantine Empire did everything from selling vegetables and apples, to debt collecting, and working in the fields.5 However Mango thinks that anti-feminism dominated Byzantine thought until the introduction of  the western concept of  ‘love’ was introduced in the twelfth century.6 This is a view referred to by Averil Cameron, who asserts that, embedded within the Byzantine written tradition, there is an attitude that there is a ‘proper place for women, that is, on the outside, not intruding into male space.’7 Of particular importance, given the context of  this chapter, is that Robin Cormack suggested that the ‘perpetual contact of  Byzantines with the imagery and language of  the cult of  the Mother of  God must have directed and shaped society’s concept of  the role of women.’ He tempers this observation by associating women with ‘original sin’ through Eve, and asserts that in ‘the church, men and women stood segregated in dif ferent parts of  the building,’ stating assertively that there ‘is nothing […] to connect

4 5 6

7

James (1997). Also Pomerantz (2003), and Kalavrezou (2003), 13–32. Laiou (1981), 233–260, and also (1982), 98–103. Mango states: ‘Anti-feminism was a fundamental tenet of  Byzantine thinking until the sporadic introduction of western ideas of romantic love in about the twelfth century.’ Mango observes that there was ‘separation between clergy and laity, between the sexes, and between baptized Christians and catchumens.’ Furthermore: ‘To make matters more complicated, we also have evidence that men stood in the right aisle and women in the left; and, furthermore, that women were sometimes placed in the galleries.’ See Mango (1976), 70–71. Also Mango (1980), 225–226. See also Cameron (1997), 2.

142

Chapter 6

art with gender-specific interests.’8 There is some support for Cormack’s argument that men and women were segregated in church from Clement of  Rome’s ‘Testament of  Our Lord,’ which states: ‘Let that house have two porches, on the right and on the left, for men and for women.’9 However this appears to refer to the house of  the catchumens rather than to the church itself. Probably the first person to consider the role of women from an architectural and liturgical perspective was Mathews under the heading: ‘Places for women and the imperial court.’ In doing so, he broached a subject that has taxed scholars during the intervening forty years – how to identify, define and determine the role and position of women in society.10 In Constantinopolitan churches, Mathews observes that the accepted opinion is that the faithful had ‘use of  the nave, aisles, and galleries of  the Early Byzantine church with men on the ground f loor and women above,’ although women could mingle with men on the ground f loor.11 However as Mathews points out, Evagrius describes men as being in the galleries in the late sixth century, and Procopius indicates that the women’s place in the galleries is restricted in area.12 Krautheimer states that galleries similar to those at the Studios church were ‘apparently standard in Constantinople,’ and Mathews notes that almost all the Constantinopolitan churches that he considered had galleries.13 Mathews states that there is little textual evidence to support the universal assumption by archaeologists of  the day that women were segregated in the galleries and men on the ground f loor, other than from the references by John Chrysostom in the early fifth century, and from comments by Procopius in the sixth century.14

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Cormack (2000), 215. See Chapter 4 for the extended quote. See also Cooper and MacLean (1902), 64. Mathews (1971). Mathews (1971), 117. Mathews (1971), 130–131. Krautheimer (1986), 105. Also Mathews (1971), 108. For Procopius see Dewing (2002), 25–27. Mathews’ book was published in 1971. However in 1993 the archaeologist Tsafrir was still writing that ‘in the hall [nave & aisles] the male and female congregants were separated, the men being placed on

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes

143

Where there were no galleries Mathews thinks the women stood on the left and men on the right. In his analysis of  the early Roman liturgy set out in Ordo Romanus I, Mathews takes it to indicate that in the early Roman church plan the sexes were segregated and that it was normal for women to gather to the left of apse (when facing it) and men to the right of  the apse. Mathews uses De Ceremoniis to establish that the women’s place in the Chalkoprateia in Constantinople is to the left: On the feasts of  the Annunciation and the Birth of  the Virgin the Emperors left the sanctuary by the door at the left and passed through the women’s place […] to be received by the senate and proceeded from there to the shrine of  the Virgin’s cincture, located somewhere south of  the church.15

However this could instead be read to indicate that they exited the sanctuary by the south entrance nearest the shrine of  the Virgin’s cincture. After all, why would they leave by the north entrance when they wish to get to the shrine to the south? So the question is: to whose left? Are the directions given from the perspective of someone standing in the congregation facing the apse, or alternatively a member of  the clergy standing in the apse facing the congregation? If  the latter, then this would mean that the ‘women’s place’ was located beside the south entrance. While delivering a comprehensive historical and liturgical treatment of  the place of women within the Byzantine Church of the Constantinopolitan patriarchate, Taft first declares that throughout history ‘religion, sex, and gender have been intertwined in an unrelenting embrace,’ but then remarks that this same intertwining resulted in ‘the segregation of women in church in Byzantium’ and concludes that ‘in so doing, I simply presume what

15

one of its sides and the women on the other.’ See Tsafrir (1993), 5. Similarly Talbot writes that ‘Within the church building, women were separated from men, being relegated either to an upper gallery or to a side aisle, depending on the size and plan of  the structure.’ See Talbot (1997), 117–143. See also Talbot (1998), 113–127. Mathews (1971), 132.

144

Chapter 6

should require no demonstration: that in Byzantine Christianity as elsewhere, women were systematically ranked after men.’16 Taft refers to a sixth-century text by Chorikios which indicates that the funeral bier of a man was placed to the right of  the sanctuary, that of a woman to the left, and that of a hegumen placed directly in front of  the sanctuary.17 But was Chorikios facing towards the east or west when describing the scene? From this text Taft extrapolates that ‘men and women stood separately in church, men on the right, women on the left,’ although Chorikios indicates that women also occupied the galleries of  the church. Taft further suggests that a ‘careful scrutiny of  the hundreds of extant Byzantine liturgical manuscripts would doubtless turn up numerous instances of  the same or similar practices right up to our own day.’18 In regard to the space occupied in church by the deaconesses, Taft thinks that the tenth-century De Ceremoniis, and also the twelfth-century description of  Anthony of  Novgorod, indicate that in the Hagia Sophia the deaconesses, whom he equates to the singing myrrh-bearing women, occupied a reserved place in the narthex of  the gynaeceum near the skeuophylakion. Taft expends some ef fort in identifying its location in the eastern half of  the north aisle of  the church, and the ‘narthex of  the deaconesses’ as a forehall at the entrance to the gynaeceum of  the deaconesses or north aisle between it and the skeuophylakion.19 Taft asserts that male candidates had primacy in the communion service whereas the ‘deaconess, though she receives the chalice in the hand and drinks from it, puts it back on the altar without distributing it to others.’20 Close reading of  the liturgy of  the Monophysite Syrian Jacobites appears to contradict this viewpoint: ‘And when he drinks from the deaconess the wine that has been mingled […] And when he drinks the deaconess […] And wiping the chalice with a sponge.’21 In this extract a male appears to 16 17 18 19 20 21

Taft (1998), 27–87. Taft (1998), 31. See also Foerster and Richsteig (1972), 40. Taft (1998), 57. Taft (1998), 69. Taft (1998), 64. From the Liturgy of  the Syrian Jacobites in Brightman (1896), 107.

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes

145

accept the chalice from a deaconess. There is further supporting evidence from another source for the involvement of deaconesses and also canonical widows in the liturgical service during the Early Byzantine period: Because that the ancient people erred, when he of fereth let the veil in front of  the door be closed, and within it [the sanctuary?] let him of fer with the presbyters and deacons and the canonical widows, and subdeacons and deaconesses and readers [and] those who have gifts.22

Because the Monophysite and Orthodox Chalcedonian church were interrelated to a certain extent prior to their sixth-century schism, this early text may have applied to either one, or to both. Solovey points out that the Byzantine rite owes its origins to Antioch, and was then subsequently developed in Constantinople, although it is not stated whether it developed in isolation from or parallel to other liturgies.23 As such it is likely that Syrian Jacobite or Monophysite liturgies contain some remnant of  those used by these early fifth-century Antiochene bishops of  Constantinople and validates their qualified use by Taft, and also in this book also. Certainly the inf luence of  the Monophysite Church on the early fifth-century Constantinopolitan church is attested to by the succession of  Antiochene or Oriental candidates who were appointed as bishops of  Constantinople, such as John Chrysostom and Nestorius, and indicates at the very least some dependency upon that patriarchate.24 And if  Constantinople depended upon the patriarchate of  Antioch at this time to provide or appoint its bishops, then there must also be a suspicion that during this early period at least there was a concomitant f low of  liturgical and other inf luences as well.25 An interesting point raised by Taft is the importance of  the burial site at the Hagia Sophia of  ‘Anna,’ mentioned by Anthony of  Novgorod in the twelfth century, who donated her house to the church and on whose

22 23 24 25

Cooper and MacLean (1902), 70. See Solovey (1970), 44–45. Limberis (1995), 321–340. See also Mayer and Allen (2000), 3–16. For a more detailed analysis of  the nuances see Shepherd (1961), 23–44.

146

Chapter 6

site the skeuophylakion was built.26 Outside the door of  the prothesis or skeuophylakion is a cross and he thinks that Anna is buried behind it. The actual location of  the grave is unclear, but it is interesting that it was Anna who was the donor, and not her husband or family, and she who was honoured by being buried within the church complex in a high status location north of  the church.27 There is also mention of a child’s tomb, that of  St. Athinogenos, which is described as the only tomb actually located in Hagia Sophia.28 It is notable that in his paper dealing with women at church in Byzantium, Taft overlooks space assigned to the most important woman in the history of  the church, the Virgin Mary or Theotokos, although both he and Mathews include references to the Chalkoprateia church where the Virgin’s cincture was housed.29 Vasiliki Limberis states that the cult of  the Virgin Mary spread rapidly during the first half of  the fifth century, but was she allocated a specific space within each church, or were there instead specific churches dedicated to her?30 There are three churches dedicated to her in Constantinople which are attributed to the empress Pulcheria, and these were constructed from the A.D. 430s, namely those at Blachernae that housed the Virgin’s robe, that of  the Hodegetria that housed an icon of  her made by St. Luke, and that of  Chalkoprateia which housed her cincture.31 Taft readily admits that a search of canonical sources produced ‘remarkably little juridical evidence of spaces in church forbidden to women – and what they can or cannot do there,’ other than for menstruating women and 26 Taft (1998), 66–67. 27 Indeed Herrin states that some women may have donated their property to churches to the detriment of  their families. See Herrin (1993), 178. 28 Taft (1998), 67. 29 Mathews (1971), 28–33. 30 Limberis (1995), 321–340. 31 Krautheimer states that Blachernae was built as an apsidal basilica with galleries under Justin I (A.D. 518–527) and remodelled under emperor Justin II (A.D. 564–576) with a trefoil transept. See Krautheimer (1986), 105 and 267. Mathews provides three possible dates for construction of  the Chalkoprateia; under Pulcheria’s period of inf luence, under Verina the wife of emperor Leo I (A.D. 457–474), or under emperor Justine II (A.D. 565–578). See Mathews (1971), 28.

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes

147

vigils, and he urges caution.32 There is therefore a degree of uncertainty regarding the place of women in the Early Byzantine Church, whether the sexes are segregated in churches, and even as to what role women played in society in general. But what evidence is there with regard to the Early Byzantine Church?

Historical evidence In the introduction to the life of Saint Leoba, C.H. Talbot notes that a ‘recent study has shown that of some 2,200 known saints from the early Middle Ages, only about 300 were women.’33 This research by Jane Schulenburg into 2,200 male and female saints utilizes not only saints’ Lives but also: […] many other contemporary sources that corroborate evidence found in vitae, including chronicles, cartularies, secular and ecclesiastical legislation, correspondence, penitentials, liturgical collections, handbooks of ecclesiastical of fices, art, and architectural and archaeological evidence.34

This research also notes that during this period the ratio is seven male saints to every one female saint, i.e. that females constitute some 15% of all saints during this period. However the percentage of  female saints varies from century to century from a low of 7.6% in the late sixth century, up to a high of 23.5% in the early eighth century.35 Constance Berman states that ‘the number of monastic houses for women founded in medieval Western Europe is much greater than once thought,’ and as such this figure may provide a misleading impression of  the

32 33

Taft (1998), 72. Talbot understates the number, as I make this number approximately 330. Talbot (1995), 256. 34 Schulenburg (1998), 8. 35 Schulenburg (1998), Table 1.

148

Chapter 6

role played by women in religious life.36 In an important research project into the diverse activities of religious women from A.D. 500–1500, Mary McLaughlin notes that women: […] associated with religious life were married and widowed as well as celibate; they entered this life at widely varying ages, from childhood to late maturity. As wives and widows, mothers and daughters, sisters, cousins, aunts, and nieces, they belonged to families at nearly every level of medieval society, from royal and aristocratic to those of decidedly lower status in towns and countryside. By no means all of  them were professed nuns; many communities also included lay sisters or conversae, as well as female servants and sometimes lay ‘boarders’ or corrodians. Women founders and benefactors, who were numerous during this period, often remained closely attached to the communities they supported. Some of  them became members and heads of  these communities […] As individuals, nuns and other religious women were saints, mystics and reformers, writers, scholars and teachers, scribes and illuminators.37

Indeed Snively cautions that ‘no standardized plan for monasteries developed in any region until well after the end of  the Late Antique period. Therefore one cannot assume that early monasteries for either sex had all the features and regularity of  Byzantine or medieval ones.’38 This research indicates then that religious life encompassed a range of activities and that women filled many of  these roles. In the West there is a useful reference in Cogitosus’ seventh century Vita Brigitae at a time when Ireland has resolved the ‘Paschal question’ and was under the inf luence of  Rome.39 Although this text is (a) Western, (b) Irish, (c) monastic, and (d) apparently refers to a double house, it is one of  the few texts to provide a description of  the internal configuration of a monastic church and the activities that occur there.

36 37 38 39

Berman (2001), 103. The focus of  McLaughlin’s research is on the ‘Latin West,’ which invites replication in the (Byzantine?) Christian East by Byzantinists. See McLaughlin (1987), 62–63, and 64. See also the project’s website: . Snively (2001), 58. Ó Cróinín (1982), 405–430. Also Ó Cróinín (1995), 201–203.

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes

149

1. Neither should one pass over in silence the miracle wrought in the repairing the church in which the glorious bodies of  both – namely Archbishop Conleth and our most f lourishing virgin Brigit – are laid on the right and left of  the ornate altar and rest in tombs adorned with a refined profusion of gold, silver, gems and precious stones with gold and silver chandeliers hanging from above and dif ferent images presenting a variety of carvings and colours. 2. Thus, on account of  the growing number of  the faithful of  both sexes, a new reality is born in an age-old setting, that is a church with its spacious sitet and its awesome height towering upwards. It is adorned with painted pictures and inside there are three chapels which are spacious and divided by board walls under the single roof of  the cathedral church. The first of  these walls, which is painted with pictures and covered with wall-hangings, stretches widthwise in the east part of  the church from one wall to the other. In it there are two doors, one at either end, and through the door situated on the right, one enters the sanctuary to the altar where the archbishop of fers the Lord’s sacrifice together with his monastic chapter and those appointed to the sacred mysteries. Through the other door, situated on the left side of  the aforesaid cross-wall, only the abbess and her nuns and faithful widows enter to partake of  the banquet of  the body and blood of  Jesus Christ. 3. The second of  these walls divides the f loor of  the building into two equal parts and stretches from the west wall to the wall running across the church. This church contains many windows and one finely wrought portal on the right side through which the priests and the faithful of  the male sex enter the church, and a second portal on the left side through which the nuns and congregation of women faithful are accustomed to enter. And so, in one vast basilica, a large congregation of varying status, rank, sex and local origin, with partitions placed between them, prays to the omnipotent Master, dif fering in status, but one in spirit.40

The suggestion here is that the church congregation was indeed segregated into male and female groups. There is still some doubt here whether the commentator Cogitosus describes the scene as viewed looking towards the east or west. This matters because a person looking down the church from the apse will have the south aisle to their left, and another person looking towards the apse will have the north aisle to their left. This is further 40 Connolly and Picard (1987), 26. The reference to the hanging ‘chandelier’ or crown is interesting in light of  the suspended crowns and crosses from the Guarrazar Treasure in Spain and the possible suspended cross at the North Church of  Rehovot-in-theNegev. See Harris (2003), plate 6 and 7. Also Tsafrir (1988), 142–149 and figure III.223, and also Patrich (1988), 107 and plate VII.23.

150

Chapter 6

complicated by the church being located in the Latin West at a time when churches are often aligned with their apse towards the west, and in which case the first person will have the north aisle to their left, and the latter person the south aisle to their left. There are some tombs that are sexed historically, i.e. from the name of  the person, such as the tomb of  Rusticula (A.D. 556–632) abbess of  Arles, which is at the right side of  the altar and there is a reference that in death she is seated at the ‘right side of  the Lamb,’ or Christ.41 Similarly Glodesind is also buried on the right side of  the altar, and notably both are buried in churches dedicated to St. Mary.42 No indication however is given as to whether this was the laity’s right, when viewing the altar from the nave, or the clergy’s right, as when standing behind the altar looking out into the nave. However, the evidence from the monastery of  Beth-Shan is less ambiguous. An inscription in the southeast corner of  the church, adjacent to the apse, instructs that the body of  the ‘Lady Mary, who founded this church’ should be laid to rest in the tomb that lay beneath it. Furthermore an inscription in the northeast of  the church, again adjacent to the apse, reveals that the body of  Georgia lies in the tomb beneath the inscription.43 In this church, women are not excluded, and women could be buried alongside both the north and south side of  the apse. There are also references to women disguising themselves as men so that they can enter male monasteries.44 One such candidate is even said to have risen to become abbot of such a monastery, and can be said to be representative of  ‘a type of saint very popular in eastern hagiography, the transvestite saint.’45 There are also historical references to women ruling over male monasteries, albeit in the case of saint Leoba over dual male and female monasteries at Wimbourne in Britain during the eighth–ninth

41 McNamara et al (1992), 135. 42 McNamara et al (1992), 146. 43 Fitzgerald (1939), 14–16. 44 Constans (1996), 1–12. Also Featherstone (1996), 13–64. 45 McNamara et al (1992), 52.

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes

151

century.46 Not only that but in the case of saint Leoba her remains were explicitly to have been interred in the male monastery at Fulda where she often prayed. This was at the instructions of  the holy martyr saint Boniface who ordered ‘that after his death her bones should be placed next to his in the tomb.’47 However these wishes are not obeyed and her remains were instead placed in a separate tomb north of  the altar, and they were later moved to the west porch. Gilchrist suggests segregation of  the sexes, whether using architecture or social rites such as burial, is presented in archaeological literature as coincident with ‘lower female prestige.’48 In the context of medieval England, she challenges this perception and questions whether the meaning of sexual segregation, confirmed by historical and ethnographic evidence, and resulting spatial pattern may instead ref lect a ‘formal device used to represent gender dif ference and social order.’ And indeed Gilchrist goes on to suggest that any sexual segregation might have varied with status and age. However, what is the archaeological evidence for segregation of  the sexes in Early Byzantine basilical churches?

Archaeological evidence The evidence from Early Byzantine basilical churches in the catalogue can be broken down (Table 6.1–6.7) into four main categories: burials, inscriptions, artefacts, and images. I have treated the category ‘images’ in a separate set of  tables for reasons outlined in that section.

46 Talbot (1995), 255–277. 47 Talbot (1995), 272 and 274. 48 Gilchrist (1999), 113 and 143.

152

Chapter 6

(i) Burials There are two methods used for sexing burials. The first method involves osteological sexing of  human skeletal remains.49 Roberts and Manchester observe that there are three variables that can be used to osteologically sex human skeletal remains: Three areas of  the skeleton may indicate the sex of  the individual: the pelvic girdle, skull and measurements of certain dimensions of  the skeletal elements, particularly the femur […] The pelvic girdle is accepted to be the most sexually dimorphic area of  the body, with the skull and long bones being less reliable. It should be noted that some skeletons show mixtures of male and female traits, and occasionally it may not be possible to assign a definite sex to the individual.50

Renfrew and Bahn suggest that where human skeletal remains are osteologically sexed by suitably qualified practitioners the results can be reasonably secure insofar as biological (male/female) sexing is concerned.51 Gilchrist has observed that where osteological sexing of  human sexes is used: These methods can be used with up to 95 per cent confidence where the pelvis is present, and 85–95 per cent confidence where the skull is complete.52

The second method used is anthropological sexing of  burials using artefactual evidence, i.e. where artefacts of a certain type are thought to be associated with one or other sex.53 However this method can be unreliable in some circumstances. For example, Gilchrist has observed that where: […] biological sex is separately determined, considerable ambiguity appears [in Anglo-Saxon burials], such as the occurrence of weapons with female skeletons, or

49 See White and Folkens (2005). Also Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994). See also Renfrew and Bahn (2000), 422–424. 50 Roberts and Manchester (2001), 22–23. 51 See also Renfrew and Bahn (2000), 422–424. 52 Gilchrist (1999), 69. See also Brown (1998), 3–15. 53 For example, Pomerantz (2003).

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes

153

jewellery with males […] the lack of reliability of anthropological sexing is sometimes raised as a defence.54

As a result of  these observations osteologically sexed skeletal remains are treated separately from anthropologically sexed burials. It should also be noted that the gender of  human remains, even where they are known, have not always been provided in published archaeological reports. While it is perhaps not surprising that many Early Byzantine tombs were robbed, possibly for the translation of relics to other churches that were less at risk of  foreign invasion or to promote the cult of saints and martyrs, it is surprising that where human remains are recovered these remains are not always scientifically analysed and so often the sex, age, condition or cause of death are not provided. (a) Osteologically sexed skeletal remains There are no burials in any of  the four Constantinopolitan church sites (Table 6.1). Only one Syrian church site (Table 6.2) has burials, and all twenty-eight osteologically sexed males at Kursi are in a single tomb located in the east portico or narthex.55 Of  the Roman church sites (Table 6.3), Phase 5–6 A.D. 800–1100 of  the Mola di Monte Gelato in Italy has osteologically sexed burials.56 There is one male and a female buried in the chancel-apse under the location of  the altar table. These appear to be relics and were discovered together with fragments of one dark blue glass oil lamp handle, one pale green glass oil lamp, and a pale blue-green glass oil lamp. There were osteologically sexed males and females buried in the f loor of  the nave, and some male interrals in the f loor of  the north chapel. There are two indeterminate churches with osteologically sexed burials. That of  Khirbet el-Beiyûdât in Israel had a female aged 25–35 buried in the east portico or narthex together with one iron signet ring, one iron 54 Gilchrist (1999), 69. See also Brown (1998), 3–15. 55 Tzaferis (1983), 13, and footnote 26. 56 Potter and King (1997), 111–180.

154

Chapter 6

fibula, and one burnt cooking pot sherd.57 This association between a female burial and an iron ring and fibula means that where these artefacts are discarded in the church they can tentatively be associated with the presence of women until there is evidence to the contrary. At Kissufim in Israel there is a tomb for a male and female together with three others in the north aisle.58 There are no consistent repeated patterns across all of  these churches with interrals. The church at Kursi might be taken to indicate that males are interred in the east portico or narthex given the number of interrals, and yet the sole female buried in the same part of  the church at Khirbet el-Beiyûdât negates any such argument. The north chapel at Mola di Monte Gelato might be the sole preserve of male interrals, and yet the church has both males and females buried together in the nave and chancel-apse and so, although Taft may be correct in his analysis of  the sixth century texts by Chorikios in Gaza, the evidence from osteologically sexed burials does not suggest that there is segregation of  the sexes either in the church or in the afterlife. The prevailing orthodox view referred to by Mathews that, where there are no galleries, the women stand on the left and the men to the right finds no supporting evidence here. The only osteologically sexed burial in an aisle is that of a tomb for a man and a woman together in the north aisle at Kissufim.59 Of particular note here is the monastery of  Martyrius where there is a burial hall (Room 221) adjacent to the church where the tomb of  Paul contains his remains and those thought to succeed him to the abbacy, and there are nine male and one female interrals that are anatomically or osteologically sexed.60 Also at this site inscription no. 4: ‘Of fering of  Antonina(?) 57 58 59

Hizmi (1990), 248. Cohen (1993), 277–282. Ivison noted that at Antioch the ‘dif fering statures of skeletons and the presence of children indicate that persons of all ages and probably gender were represented.’ Also that analysis of  the bones from Hattusas, Sardis, H. Polyeuktos, and Nicaea Theatre ‘cemeteries found both sexes and all ages without dif ferentiation.’ See Ivison (1993), 53. 60 Magen and Talgam (1990), 98. Also Magen (1993), 170–196.

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes

155

and Auxentius’ on a chancel screen fragment recovered in the vicinity of  the basilica is unusual in that the woman’s name appears before the man’s, and the possibility exists that hers are the human remains buried together with the nine males in L. 221. Alternatively, the female remains in the burial hall might be taken as tangible evidence behind some legends for a ‘transvestite,’ i.e. a female disguised as a male, who rose to lead a monastery.61 (b) Anthropologically sexed burials (using artefacts) It is dif ficult to assign specific artefacts to either sex because almost no archaeological research has been conducted into this area during the Early Byzantine period. This applies particularly in light of  Laiou’s analysis of  the roles played by women in Byzantine society.62 However one Syrian church, i.e. the North Church at Nessana, has a tomb where the size of a leather shoe in a tomb in the south aisle indicates that it belonged either to a female or juvenile, and there is some supporting evidence from a tomb inscription (Inscription no. 14) in the south aisle dedicated to the ‘blessed Maria’ that suggests the shoe belongs to a female. Another Syrian church at Ostrakine has two bone fragments in a reliquary together with a bronze needle that could be taken as an artefact used by a female, but is ambiguous because a needle might be used by either sex. At the Roman church of  the North Church at Rehovot-in-the-Negev in Israel, Tomb L538 with two skeletons in the south aisle with a tomb inscription (inscription no. 6) dedicated to ‘blessed Makedonios’ who is the father of  Elias and Boethos has two metal earrings and one coin in it. The question then is do the earrings belong to Makedonios or to his companion – possibly his wife? The same problem arises in considering the Roman church at Khirbat al-Karak where a silver ring and a juglet were recovered in a burial in the north aisle. It might tentatively be suggested that the earrings and ring belong to females, but further research into

Constans (1996), 1–12. Also Featherstone (1996), 13–64, and McNamara et al (1992), 52. 62 Laiou (1981), and (1982). 61

156

Chapter 6

anatomically or osteologically sexed burials and their grave goods would need to be conducted before any credence could be given this view. The indeterminate church of  Beit ‘Einûn in Israel has a crypt beneath the chancel-apse which has two Byzantine trough burials with two necklaces, two bronze crosses, and one bell that might again indicate female burials, but further research is required into these artefacts. Clearly anthropologically-sexing burials using artefacts is a field of research that might be developed further. (ii) Inscriptions One area of evidence where there is less ambiguity comes from names that appear in inscriptions on mosaic pavements, or on artefacts such as chancel screen fragments. Only the names are reproduced in Table 6.1–6.4, and so they appear out of context from the meaning of  the original inscription.63 These inscriptions fall into three groups: those that refer only to a man, those that refer only to a woman, and those that contain the name of  both a male and female. The Constantinopolitan church at Shavei Zion has an inscription in the east portico or narthex with a male reference. However on its own this single inscription hardly constitutes evidence for segregation in this type of church, and there appears to be no evidence in support of segregation of  the sexes in these churches. There are several Syrian churches with inscriptions that refer either to males, females or to both males and females. Four of  these churches have inscriptions that refer only to males. At Khirbet ed-Deir there is an inscription with a male reference in the chancel-apse. Kursi has a reference to a male in an inscription in the room south of apse. Horvat Beit Loya has a reference to a male in an inscription in both the nave and south chapel. The North Church at Nessana has a reference to a male in an inscription in both the north and south aisles. This means that overall there are inscriptions 63

The inscriptions are reproduced in full in Mulholland (2011), Table 6.1–6.4.

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes

157

with male only references in every part of  the church building except for the room north of  the apse, and the east portico or narthex. The Cathedral Church in Gerasa has an inscription with a female reference in the south chapel, the church of  St. John the Baptist, St. George, and SS. Cosmas & Damianus at Gerasa has a reference to a female, and also to both a male and female, in an inscription in the nave. The monastery of  Martyrius has a reference to both a male and female in an inscription in the chancel-apse. There is also the female inscription in the south aisle of  the North Church at Nessana. In Syrian churches there is no evidence to support segregation of  the sexes in these churches and both male and female inscriptions occur in most areas of  the church building. By far the greatest number of inscriptions from mosaic pavements is found in Roman churches. At four of  these church sites there are inscriptions that include references to both male and females. At Poreč there are inscriptions referring to both male and females in the north aisle and nave, and also inscriptions with references only to males in the chancel-apse, north aisle and nave. Nahariya has an inscription containing references to both a male and female in the chancel-apse and St. Mary’s or the South Church in Nessana has a similar inscription in the nave. Horvat Hesheq has inscriptions with both male and female references in the south apse and nave, and there is a male only reference in the south aisle. Two sites host inscriptions that refer exclusively to a male or a female. ‘Evron has an inscription with a reference to a female in the narthex/east portico, and inscriptions with a male reference in the nave, narthex/east portico and also the north chapel. The North Church at Rehovot-in-theNegev has an inscription with a female reference in the north aisle, but also another there with a reference to a male and others in the nave and south aisle. The site at Khirbat al-Karak has an inscription with a reference to a male in its north chapel. In those Roman church sites there appears to be no evidence in support of demarcation of single sex zones. Neither do the remaining ‘indeterminate’ church sites provide any clear supporting evidence either. Each of  the five sites with inscriptions has one

158

Chapter 6

with a male reference in the nave. At Kissufim there are also inscriptions with male, female and both male and female references in the north aisle. Khirbet el-Shubeika also has an inscription with a male reference in the north aisle and another with a female reference in the chancel-apse. And at Khirbet el-Beiyûdât there is an inscription with a reference to a male in the chancel-apse, nave and side chapel. The evidence from inscriptions in mosaic pavements does not support the segregation of  the sexes in church buildings, and there appear to be no clearly defined zones for either of  the sexes. Some of  these inscriptions with both male and female references are ‘family’ inscriptions and as such would appear to counter the entire notion of segregation of  the sexes. This in itself might raise the question as to whether this idea of segregation of  the sexes might not refer exclusively to young male and females of  ‘marriageable age,’ rather than to married couples and pre-pubescent children. Further research into inscriptions on mosaic pavements in early church sites might reveal some evidence of repeated patterns that are not apparent in the sample examined in this research. (iii) Artefacts It seems that Byzantine archaeologists have yet to determine whether specific artefacts can be identified with one or other sex, or indeed both. Therefore artefacts from the catalogue (Table 6.1–6.4) are assigned to one or other sex based on assumptions that may need revising. Beginning with Syrian churches, the bronze pendant recovered in the room south of apse at Kursi is taken as belonging to a female on the basis that these artefacts are elsewhere attributed to women.64 These same sources attribute bone pins/needles and spindles to women and so loom weights recovered at some sites, which also accompany weaving activity, might likewise be attributed by association where they occur together. At the Large Basilica in Nicopolis ad Istrum a bone pin head and bone point 64 For example Walker (2003), 204. Also Heintz (2003), 283–284, 286–289 and 300–301.

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes

159

were recovered in the south aisle area of  the church, and also a fragment from a terracotta toy.65 In the nearby Small Basilica in Nicopolis ad Istrum three bone pins and a bone point were recovered in the nave as well as a glass bead and two fragments from a terracotta toy and a terracotta toy wheel, which might suggest the presence of women with their children. However a note of caution must be sounded in relation to bone pins in particular, for example, as an episcopal bone pin recovered in the same area would suggest that these artefacts could also be associated with males.66 This area of  the church also produced a bronze belt buckle, an iron chisel and a chisel-like object that may be associated with churchgoers but, together with an iron punch from the area of  the nave, could also belong to a later period when the church walls were robbed. Artefacts recovered from the south chapel of the Small Basilica included a bone needle, a pottery loom weight and a fired clay loom weight, as well as a fragment from the head of a toy pottery horse and Molly Fulghum Heintz argues that there is textual evidence that women were involved in spinning and weaving.67 The church at Shavei Zion had an axe head in the east portico that would normally be associated with males. Of  the Roman churches, Petra also had an iron socketed axe head that might be associated with a male, but this time recovered in the area of  the chancel-apse. A thin needle was recovered in the south aisle at this church and a threaded green opaque glass bead in the north aisle. The appearance of a threaded bead and needle in a church, and evidence from other sites for spinning or weaving could conceivably be associated with activities such as providing wall-hangings, curtains or decorated icons for churches. This is an area of archaeology that might reward further research.

65 Heintz (2003), 152. 66 See WB109/SF 10158 in Roberts (2007), 69 and 3.52. 67 Heintz (2003), 140–141.

160

Chapter 6

(iv) Images It is often very easy to determine which sex is portrayed in an image, but there are problems in determining whether the image is intended for a male or female audience and what assumptions might be drawn from their presence in a mosaic pavement. Images of women in a church (Table 6.5–6.7) might be conceived as demarcating space assigned for women, and yet as Mary Eaverly notes the female form is pleasing to men and so these might just as easily be placed there for a male audience: […] important work has also been done to define the role that the ancient viewer played in decoding gender roles in art that feminist scholars have identified as ‘the determining male gaze.’ That is, images of women were created for male viewers whose ideas about femininity, sexuality, and proper roles were the force that shaped and informed the ways in which women were portrayed, which often led to a definition of women as ‘other’ and ‘outsiders.’ 68

Similarly, Liz James argues that: Byzantine images are, overwhelmingly, designed and created by men; they formulate and ref lect a culture designed by men for women and for men; their images of women are men’s images of women and a male response to women and a male response to the relationship between men and women.69

For these reasons the data on images of women and men have been placed in separate Tables (Table 6.5–6.7) from the other artefactual data. Even so, close examination of  the data fails to find evidence that the sexes were segregated. There are no repeated patterns in the use of male or female images to demarcate areas or zones that might be attributed to either.

68 Eaverly (1999), 6. See also Brown (1997), 12–42. 69 James (1997), xviii. For a broader discussion of  the underlying theory as it pertains to archaeology see also Gilchrist (1999), 72–76.

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes

161

Conclusion The purpose of  this chapter was to examine whether there is any archaeological evidence in the catalogue of church sites that the sexes were segregated. The reason for this was because should there be archaeological evidence for segregation of  the sexes then this evidence could be crossreferenced against repeated patterns for artefactual deposition revealed in the previous chapter. Current prevailing views on the subject were reviewed and some textual evidence considered. Whilst compiling the catalogue of church sites and the artefacts thought to be deposited while these basilicas still functioned as churches a record was kept of which artefacts or finds might be construed as evidence for either males or females on site. This evidence was then compiled in a set of more accessible tables (Table 6.1–6.7) and the tabulated data scrutinised for any repeated patterns that might indicate that the sexes were routinely segregated in these buildings. Although much has been written about segregation of  the sexes in Early Byzantine churches, the available archaeological evidence does not support the argument that males and females were segregated and occupied specific assigned zones within the church building. Inscriptions containing a reference to a female are found in Syrian churches in the nave, chancel-apse, south aisle and south chapel. In Roman churches they are found in the east portico or narthex, north aisle, nave, chancel-apse and south apse. In the ‘indeterminate’ group of church plans these are found in the north aisle and chancel-apse. The evidence from inscriptions with references to females, males or to both males and females indicates that there are no areas in the church building that are restricted to either sex. Nor do images of  females provide any indication that females are restricted from any part of  the church building. Instead the evidence appears to indicate that women were integral to the Early Byzantine Church and played a full role. There is also compelling archaeological evidence that females were buried in the same areas of  the church as males were, and inscriptions with

162

Chapter 6

female names and references occur on mosaic pavements throughout church buildings. The evidence from anatomically or osteologically sexed burials is limited, but such evidence as there is suggests that female burials within the church building can occur in the chancel-apse north aisle, nave and east portico or narthex. Of  these only that in the east portico or narthex is of a solitary female and another church has a tomb with multiple males in this location, which rules it out as the sole preserve of either sex. Anthropologically sexed burials are more problematical in that, as Gilchrist has noted, modern preconceptions of what artefacts might be associated with a male or female could be incorrect. The only such burial that has supporting evidence from a tomb inscription to ‘Maria’ is located in the south aisle and this adds to the list of  locations within a church where female remains are recovered, such that female remains occur in all locations common to all three groups of churches. It only takes this one example of a female buried in the south aisle of a church to disprove the hypothesis that males occupied the south aisle and females the north aisle, if only because Taft has drawn support for this argument from references to the location of  funeral biers for males and females in his own thesis. Artefactual material ascribed to either sex has the same problems. Such evidence as exists suggests that women were present in the north and south aisles, the nave and room south of  the apse, as well as the south chapel where it existed. There was far more archaeological evidence available than one might have expected, and there could be far more evidence made available if all skeletal remains recovered on church sites were routinely biologically or osteologically sexed. Furthermore, it is quite likely that detailed examination of  literary and pictorial material could establish links between specific artefacts and either males or females. This could be greatly enhanced through assessing which artefacts are found exclusively in either male or female burials, and evidence for repeated patterns of artefactual deposition in graves compiled. However, just because an artefact is buried with someone does not necessarily indicate that they used the artefact while they were alive, but if  this data is cross-referenced against data from literary and pictorial sources then it would strengthen the nature of  the evidence. Further

163

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes

research might consider whether there are some individual churches or groups of churches where the sexes are segregated, and why this might be? This chapter has demonstrated that there is some high quality archaeological evidence available to address substantive questions relating to whether the sexes were segregated in Early Byzantine basilical churches. The archaeological evidence does not support the accepted view that the sexes are segregated in church. Nor is there any correlation apparent between, say, cooking pots and either of  the sexes and there is a strong case to be made for further research into this subject area. Table 6.1. Constantinopolitan church plans Site

Chancelapse

North aisle

Nave

South aisle

Shavei Zion, Israel

East portico/ narthex

North chapel

Male reference inscription: Photinus, Cosmas Artefact: (M) iron axe head

Key: (M) male, (F) female, and (M/F) for male and female.

Table 6.2. Syrian church plans Site

Room to north of apse

Chancel-apse

Room to south of apse

Kursi, Gergesa, Israel

Male reference inscription: Stephanos Artefact: (F) bronze pendant

Ostrakine, Israel

Anthropologically sexed burial: 2 bone fragments in reliquary 1 bronze needle (possibly female)

North aisle

164

Chapter 6 Site

Room to north of apse

Chancel-apse

Horvat Berachot, Israel

Crypt beneath chancel: 11 disarticulated remains

Khirbet ed-Deir, Israel

Male reference inscription no. 2: Alaphaeos, Aias (Aianos)

Room to south of apse

North Church, Nessana, Israela

North aisle

Male reference inscription no. 12(a): Sergius 12(b): Patricius Inscription no. 13: Stephen

Small Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgaria

Artefact: (M) iron punch 10091

Monastery of  Martyrius, Israelb

Male & female reference Inscription no. 4: Antonina(?), Auxentius Male inscription: Genesius, John

Key: (M) male, (F) female, and (M/F) for male and female. a Female burial in church, but whereabouts not stated. b In Room L. 221 north of narthex, nine male and, possibly, one female interral.

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes Site

Nave

South aisle

East portico/ narthex

Cathedral Church, Gerasa, Jordan

165 South chapel Female reference inscription: inscription no. 294: ‘Mary’

Large Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgariaa

Artefacts: (F) bone pin head 8029: (F) bone point 14047: (child) mane of  terracotta toy 14799

Kursi, Gergesa, Israel

Sexed burial: 28 skeletons, all male. 1 – age 2–5; 2 – age 13–20; 3 – age 21–30; 5 – 31–40; 11 – age 41–50; 2 – 51–60 & 3 – 61+

St. John the Baptist, St. George, and SS. Cosmas & Damianus, Gerasa, Jordan

Female reference inscription: Georgia Male & female reference Inscription nos. 315 & 316 Georgia, Theodore

Horvat Beit Loya, Israel

Male reference inscription: Azizos, Kyrikos

Male reference inscription: Epanagia, Aethios, Theclon [Thecla]’

166

Chapter 6 Site

Nave

North Church, Nessana, Israelb

Small Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgaria

South aisle

East portico/ narthex

South chapel

Anthropologically sexed burial: size of  leather shoe, decorated with gold, suggests female or child. Female reference inscription: limestone grave slab. Inscription no. 14: Maria Artefact: (F) Bone pin WB96: (F) glass bead 10061: (F) bone pin 10202: (F) bone pin 10185: (F) bone point 10082: (child) terracotta toy 14829: (child) terracotta toy wheel 14778: (child) terracotta toy 14793: (M) episcopal bone pin 10158: (M) bronze belt buckle 10064: (M) iron chisel 10196: (M) chisel-like iron object 10081

Artefact: (F) bone needle 10171: (F) pottery loom weight (?) 14559: (F) fired clay loom weight (?) 10167: (child) toy pottery horses head 14565

Monastery of  Martyrius, Israelc Key: (M) male, (F) female, and (M/F) for male and female. a Denotes that there are written references that indicate that the church belongs to a papal estate. b Female burial in church, but whereabouts not stated. c In Room L. 221 north of narthex, nine male and, possibly, one female interral.

167

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes Table 6.3. Roman church plans Site

North apse

Chancel-apse

South apse

North aisle

‘Evron, Israel North Church, Rehovot-in-theNegev, Israela

Female reference Inscription no. 3: Maria Male reference Inscription no. 1: Jacob Inscription no. 2: Ierio Inscription no. 5: Elias

Khirbat al-Karak, Israel

Anthropologically sexed burial: 1 silver ring 1/ BY467 1 juglet 1/BY 502 (Possibly female)

Poreč, Croatiaa

Male reference Inscription: Maurus

Santa Cornelia, Italyb

Grave 160

Male & female reference Inscription M31: Lupicinus, Pascasia, Reverentia Inscription M28: Castus, Ursa Inscription M32: Spectata Inscription M29: Ianuarius, Melania Male reference inscription: John of  Rome Inscription M19: Theofrastus, Januarius

168

Chapter 6 Site

North apse

Chancel-apse

Mola di Monte Gelato, Italyb Phase 5–6 A.D. 800–1100

Sexed burial: Grave C57, no. 2. 1 female aged 24 1 male aged 22. 1 dark blue glass oil lamp handle 145b, pale green glass oil lamp 148, pale bluegreen glass oil lamp

Petra, Jordana

Artefact: (M) iron socketed axe head 148

Horvat Hesheq, Israela

Nahariya, Israel

South apse

Artefact: (F) threaded green opaque glass bead 320 Male & female reference Inscription no. 2: Demetrius, Georgius, Somas, Theodora’

Male & female inscription: Léonce, et de toute sa famille

North aisle

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes Site

Nave

‘Evron, Israel

Male reference Inscription no. 5: Paulus, Samacon, Marcellos, Ioulianos, Antonios, Einouaris, Silvanos, Domninos, Sao.. thyl.s, Barachon, Germanos, Arion, Sabinos, Kyriacos, Abda, Herodianos, Alexon, Marinos, Euthalis, Aion, Bassos Inscription no. 9: Valentinos

North Church, Rehovot-in-theNegev, Israela

Female reference Inscription no. 11: Maria, Male reference Inscription no. 9: Stephanos, Inscription no. 10b: Petros Inscription no. 26: Stephanos Inscription no. 28: Boethos Inscription no. 29: ‘Zonenos

South aisle

Male reference Inscription no. 6: Makedonios Anthropologically sexed burial: Tomb L538: two metal earrings & one coin (M)

169

East portico/ narthex

North chapel

Female reference Inscription no. 10: Domina Male reference inscription: Inscription no. 4: Silvanos, Alexon, Dominos, Anto[nios] Inscription no. 11: Timotheos Inscription no. 8: Paulus, Diodoros, Sallou, Nanos

Male reference Inscription no. 2: Alexon, Sobbinos, Germanos, Inscription no. 3: Paulus, Marinos, Marcellos, Antonis, Diodorus, Marinos, Naoumos, Bassos, Kyracos, Domninos, Petros, Diodoros, Sobbinos, Bassos, Herodianos, Alexon, Euthalis, Loulianos, Marcellos, Germanos, Euthalis, Salo, Maximon, Aion Inscription no. 12: Aion, Samacon, Arion Inscription no. 13: Ammanos, Euthalios

170

Chapter 6 Site

Nave

South aisle

East portico/ narthex

Khirbat al-Karak, Israel

North chapel Male reference Inscription no. 1: Theodore Magister, Theophilas, Basil, Elijah, Basil

Poreč, Croatiaa

Male & female reference Inscription M9: Vulpo, Maximina, Rufinianus, Honesta Inscription M10: Mucianus, Deciana Clamosus, Victorina, Matrona senior Matrona junior Male reference Inscription M7: Bassinus, Innocentius

Santa Cornelia, Italyb

Graves 39 (one skull), 40 (two skeletons), 110, 111 & 150 (possibly two interrals)

Mola di Monte Gelato, Italyb Phase 5–6 A.D. 800–1100

Sexed burial: Ossuary, no 24, 3 males 2 females 1 adult 4 juveniles & glass f lask fragments. ‘a cappuccina tomb’ no. 7 1 female Nos. 10, 11, 15 & 17 infant interrals.

Grave no. 26 1 juvenile 1 infant 1 4th century coin & some glass fragments

Sexed burial: Grave no. 43 1 6–8yo 1 coin (A.D. 884–5) 1 iron boss. Grave no. 54 2 males No. 38 & 47 an infant each

171

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes Site

Nave

Petra, Jordana

Horvat Hesheq, Israela

South aisle

East portico/ narthex

North chapel

Artefact: (F) thin needle in sample: Male & female reference Inscription no. 1: Georgius, Demetrius Inscription no 3: Demetrius, Georgius Inscription no. 4: Demetrius, Georgius

Key: (M) male, (F) female, and (M/F) for male and female. a Denotes five known Syrian-to-Roman church conversions and also Khirbat al-Karak, which is converted from a protruding monoapsidal church. b Denotes that there are written references that indicate that the church belongs to a papal estate.

Table 6.4. Indeterminate church plans Site

Room to north of apse

Chancel-apse

Khirbet el-Beiyûdât, Israel

Male reference inscription no. 4: Abbosoubbos, Eliseos, Stephanus, Georgius

Beit ‘Einûn, Israel

Anthropologically sexed burial: 2 necklaces 2 bronze crosses 1 bell (Possibly females in 2 Byzantine trough graves)

Khirbet el-Shubeika, Israel

Female reference Inscription no. 1: Heraklitos

Room to south of apse

North aisle

Male reference Inscription no. 2: Anastasius, Procopius

172

Chapter 6 Site

Room to north of apse

Chancel-apse

Room to south of apse

Kissufim, Israel

Sexed burial: 1 Male, 1 Female 3 unknown Female reference inscription: Lady Syltous, The Lady of  Sylto Kalliora Male & Female reference inscription: Zonainos, Maris Male reference inscription: Theodoros North aisle intercolumniation inscription: Orbikon, Alexander

Site

Nave

Khirbet el-Beiyûdât, Israel

Male reference Inscription no. 3: Porphyrius, Eglon Inscription no. 1: Aphleos, Lukas, Stephanus, Sam(ios?), Eliseos, Lypon

Dor, Israel

Philippopolis (Plovdiv), Bulgaria

North aisle

South aisle

Tomb of  two saints, no remains recovered Male reference inscription: Tiberius ‘Basilisk

East portico/ narthex

Side chapel

Sexed burial: 1 Female aged 25–35 Tomb artefact: 1 iron signet ring 1 iron fibula 1 burnt cooking pot sherds

Male reference Inscription no. 5: John, Abbosobos

173

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes Site Nuseib ‘Uweishîra, Jericho, Israel Maresha (Beit Govrin), Israel

Khirbet el-Shubeika, Israel Kissufim, Israel

Nave

South aisle

East portico/ narthex

Side chapel

Male reference inscription: Tobias, Auxentius Male reference inscription: Fl(aviu)s Im(erius) Male reference Inscription no. 3: Zeirobeos, Zanneos Male reference inscription: Michael, Theodoros

Table 6.5. Images: Syrian church plans Church

Male image

Female image

Horvat Beit Loya, Israel

Narthex/east portico: mosaic pavement has image of a youth within a medallion; North aisle: a large medallion has image of  two fishermen, one with pointed headgear; South aisle: a similar large medallion has two fishermen also.

Narthex/east portico: mosaic pavement has image of a female bearing a basket of  fruit within a medallion in the narthex

St. Stephen’s, Horvat Be’ershemca, Israel

Nave: mosaic image of man playing reed f lute in nave medallion, a man leading a donkey, a man leading a camel, a man leaning on a club, a man leading an elephant with a rider and a man leading a giraf fe, and a man named by inscription as ‘Victor’

Nave: mosaic image of woman breast-feeding child in medallion in the nave

Both male & female images

174

Chapter 6 Church

Male image

Female image

Both male & female images

Petra Church, Jordan (prior to conversion to triapsidal church)

South aisle. Females: Winter (B2), probably as a woman; (B5) Earth, probably a woman; (B8) Spring, (B11) Wisdom, a woman; (B14) Summer, fulsome woman with exposed right breast; (B17) Autumn, woman. Males: (B3–4) fisherman; (B6–7) Ocean; (B9) fowler; (B12–13) fisherman

St. John the Baptist, St. George and SS. Cosmas and Damianus, Gerasa, Jordan

Nave Inscription nos. 315 & 316 in St. Cosmas & Damianus, in front of  the chancel, above a full-size image of a male & female respectively indicating that the female is Georgia, the wife of  the male, who is Theodore

Table 6.6. Images: Roman church plans Church

Gender indicator – male

Nahariya, Israel

Nave: male images in mosaic pavement surround (× 7)

Petra Church, Jordan

North aisle: male figures, one of a shepherd (A4), a man with an amphora (C4), two camel drivers (A14 & C14), an African holding a jug (A26) and a man holding a plate (C26)

Gender indicator – female

Both male & female genders

South aisle: Females: Winter (B2), probably as a woman; (B5) Earth, probably a woman; (B8) Spring, (B11) Wisdom, a woman; (B14) Summer, fulsome woman with exposed right breast; (B17) Autumn, woman. Males: (B3–4) fisherman; (B6–7) Ocean; (B9) fowler; (B12–13) fisherman

Gender analysis: is there evidence for segregation of  the sexes

175

Table 6.7. Images: indeterminate church plans Church Kissufim, Israel

Gender indicator – male North aisle intercolumniation inscription, ‘Orbikon’ above image of man leading camel. North aisle mosaic images of a horseman, a man bearing a sword and shield and a man milking an animal. Above the image of  the horseman is an inscription, ‘The work of  Alexander’

Gender indicator – female North aisle intercolumniation, image of  two ladies with inscription ‘The Lady Syltous’ or ‘The Lady of  Sylto’ above the woman to the right scattering coins, and ‘Kalliora’ inscribed above the woman to the left holding a bowl containing fowl.

Both male & female genders

Chapter 7

Conclusion

Research for this book was prompted by the observation that domestic artefacts were recovered from sealed destruction layers at two Early Byzantine church sites, i.e. the ‘cave church’ of  Khirbet ed-Deir, and the ‘pilgrim church’ of  the North Church in Rehovot-in-the-Negev. This appeared unusual because there were dining halls or refectories at each of  the sites where one would instead expect to find these artefacts. What reason could there be for cooking pots, amphorae, f lasks and jugs, plates and bowls to be found in these churches, and is this pattern repeated elsewhere in other similar churches? Could the presence of  these domestic artefacts indicate that activities other than mere liturgy took place at these sites, i.e. that non-liturgical or paraliturgical activity took place in these churches? Furthermore, do they ref lect institutional behaviour, i.e. are these patterns of deposition repeated across several church sites? This research set out to investigate whether the deposition of domestic artefacts in sealed destruction layers at Early Byzantine basilical church sites is more commonplace among church sites in the Levant than has previously been assumed. To address this question the aim was first to compile a catalogue of church sites, and to limit these to the three most common basilical church plans, i.e. monoapsidal, inscribed apse, and triapsidal. Each church site would then be placed into one of  these three groups to allow comparative analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition between churches that shared the same ground plan. If repeated patterns of artefactual deposition occurred among churches with the same ground plan then this might ref lect institutional behaviour in which the same ritual activities took place. The goal was also to locate the diakonikon. Several commentators have argued that the congregation deposited gifts in the vicinity of  the

178

Chapter 7

diakonikon. This would allow the location of  the diakonikon to be analysed in respect of any repeated patterns of domestic artefactual deposition to determine whether they coincide. Lastly, the current prevailing view is that the sexes were segregated in the Early Byzantine Church. Therefore the catalogue and database would be examined to determine whether there is archaeological evidence for segregation of  the sexes in these Early Byzantine basilical churches, and if so this would be cross-referenced against repeated patterns of artefactual deposition to determine whether they coincide. A catalogue of  forty-seven Early Byzantine churches (Table 2.1) with the three most common basilical church plans has been compiled.1 This includes artefacts deposited in sealed destruction layers that are thought to be deposited when the basilica functioned as a church or as it was abandoned. A searchable database was also compiled to accompany the catalogue.2 The domestic artefacts have been extracted and tabulated (Table 5.1–5.3) for analysis, and these come from sealed destruction layers (Table 2.2–2.5) at fourteen church sites. Preliminary comparative analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition revealed some interesting data that led to some changes being made to the catalogue of church sites. It was observed that there are two internal layouts or configurations that can af fect the deposition of artefacts in churches. These two internal configurations are identified from post holes for altar table legs and for chancel screen posts that provide the location of  the sanctuary in the church, and from repeated patterns of deposition of whole or fragmentary liturgical furniture. This archaeological evidence revealed two distinct sanctuary configurations, i.e. Π-shaped and T-shaped. The former has a chancel barrier that seals of f  the area of  the apse and also a portion of  the nave in front of it, and the latter extends across each of  the side aisles to seal of f  the apsidal end of  the church and usually extends into the nave to form the T-shaped sanctuary. These are also a crucial factor when placing Early Byzantine basilical churches into groups because the T-shaped layout covers a much larger area of  the church.

1 2

See also Mulholland (2011), Appendix I. Mulholland (2011), Appendix II.

Conclusion

179

This observation allowed church sites to be placed into two separate groups, each with one or other internal configuration. However those with the Π-shaped sanctuary could be further subdivided into another two groups: one group has a protruding apse with a major apsidal entrance to either side of  the apse, and the other group has an inscribed apse with a room to either side of  the apse. Each church in the catalogue was then placed into one of  these three new groups (figure 3.1). There are also a small number of remaining churches in the catalogue that do not readily fit into any of  these three new groups, and these have been placed into a fourth indeterminate group. Those churches with Π-shaped sanctuary and an inscribed apse with a room to either side of it are commonly described as ‘Syrian’ churches, and this label is used for this group. Furthermore Mathews had identified a Roman church plan with a T-shaped sanctuary and so churches in the catalogue with this feature have been labelled ‘Roman’ churches, and later he identified a Constantinopolitan church plan with a Π-shaped sanctuary and a protruding apse with a major entrance to either side of it, and the group of churches in the catalogue with these features has been labelled ‘Constantinopolitan’ churches. However, through placing these churches into these three new groups further observations (Table 3.1–3.7) have been made about each church plan due to the remarkable homogeneity of each. Constantinopolitan churches (Table 3.1–3.2) tend to be associated with a north chapel, and an ambo located south of  the nave entrance to the sanctuary. Roman churches (Table 3.6–3.7) are often triapsidal in plan during the sixth century, but monoapsidal from the seventh century, and they also tend to be associated with a north chapel. The ambo tends to be located to the north of  the nave entrance to the sanctuary, and they are more likely to have a synthronon or tiered seat around the apse, and a bishop’s seat. The T-shaped sanctuary appears to often accommodate side altars located in each side apse, and these churches are more often associated with relics and reliquaries, which can be buried in the mosaic pavement beneath the altar tables or placed on top of  the altar. There is also interesting evidence that some of  these church sites share a wreathed crosses decoration on chancel screens (or stephanostaurion) with a chancel screen in St. Clemente in Rome that

180

Chapter 7

has a monogram of pope John II (A.D. 533–535) in place of  the cross, and that provides useful dating evidence for this design. In contrast, Syrian churches (Table 3.3–3.5) tend to have a south chapel adjacent to the south aisle, rarely have a synthronon or bishop’s seat, and the ambo may be located to either side of  the nave entrance. There is also remarkable evidence that six of  the Roman churches were originally constructed with a Syrian church plan, and in one instance with a monoapsidal church plan, and were subsequently converted during the sixth century into triapsidal churches with a T-shaped sanctuary. This is not a localised phenomenon either, and the church at Novae in Bulgaria and St. Clemente in Rome were also similarly converted at this time. Nor are these conversions evidence for an evolution in church design, because some Syrian churches continue in use and the church at Kursi was renovated in the late sixth century to include a baptistery. Furthermore the preliminary comparative analysis of repeated patterns of artefactual deposition revealed a second focus of  liturgical activity using the same archaeological evidence (Table 4.2–4.4) as that used to identify the location of  the sanctuary in the church. This second focus is located in the side chapels, where they have been excavated, and in Chapter 4 these were examined more closely. This evidence appears to support Crowfoot’s observation that the rite of prothesis took place in side chapels during the Early Byzantine period, and there is also supporting archaeological evidence for his view that they also functioned as diakonika at this time. Remarkably, there are six known inscriptions (Table 4.1) that refer to a diakonikon, diakonika or diaconia. Of  these five are found in side chapels, four of which are north chapels, i.e. the Constantinopolitan Propylaea Church and the Roman churches at Khirbat al-Karak and ‘Evron, and also in the north chapel at Mount Nebo. There is also one partial inscription in the south chapel at the Syrian church at Kursi. These inscriptions provide compelling evidence that these side chapels function as diakonika during the Early Byzantine period. Furthermore there is no competing evidence for a second focus of  liturgical activity anywhere else in these churches that would challenge these findings. Another interesting observation can be made in respect to these side chapels. Firstly, there are two distinct plans: apsidal and rectangular.

Conclusion

181

Secondly, there is evidence (Table 4.2–4.4) in some side chapels with a rectangular plan for a column base or column drum placed where one would expect an altar table to be located, i.e. against the east wall inside the side chapel’s sanctuary. Column bases or drums are also found in two churches, at Khirbet el-Beiyûdât to the south of  the ambo and in Bishop Genesius church in the north and south aisles to the rear of  the chancel barrier. There is no other archaeological evidence that would indicate what purpose these column bases might serve. However, Kitzinger notes that a statue of  Christ was re-located to a church’s diakonikon and it is possible that these columns supported similar statues. However more conclusive archaeological evidence would be required to substantiate any argument that these column bases or drums supported statues. Comparative analysis of repeated patterns of domestic artefactual deposition (Table 5.1–5.3) revealed that amphorae, jugs and f lasks, and also plates and bowls appear regularly together in sealed destruction layers, and often adjacent to the sanctuary in the south aisle. The amphorae are far too large and heavy to be lost or carelessly misplaced, and their presence alone suggests that these artefacts are deliberately placed there. Mathews has argued that Ordo Romanus I indicates that the congregation brought gifts to the chancel barrier and the clergy selected a portion for the liturgy and transferred it directly to the altar table in the church sanctuary. The last part of  this analysis appears unlikely in that there is compelling evidence that Roman churches are associated with north chapels that function as diakonika, and there is archaeological evidence that the rite of prothesis took place in these diakonika. Therefore, while it is possible that the congregation brought gifts up to the chancel barrier, it would appear more likely that a portion was transferred to the side chapel or diakonikon for the rite of prothesis. The clergy would then process from the diakonikon with the Eucharist into the church to perform the liturgy and at the conclusion of  the ceremony retrace their steps back to the diakonikon. There is insuf ficient archaeological evidence for domestic pottery in Constantinopolitan churches to apply the same argument to them, but they also have north chapels that function as diakonika and there is also evidence for a secondary focus of  liturgical activity in these where the rite of prothesis possibly took place.

182

Chapter 7

The Syrian churches often have their south chapel located of f  the south aisle and here the deposition of domestic artefacts in the vicinity of  the south aisle could indicate that the laity brought gifts into church where they were collected, stored and redistributed in the south aisle near to the south chapel or diakonikon. It is plausible that a portion of  these gifts was brought into the south chapel for the rite of prothesis and then transferred in procession to the altar table in the church for the liturgy, and upon conclusion of  the liturgical performance the clergy retrace their steps to the south chapel or diakonikon. Of note is that there are also four sites where cooking pots or vessels were deposited in the same area in sealed destruction layers. The presence of  these cooking pots suggests that food is cooked elsewhere and then brought into the church, possibly as a gift by the congregation. Since no cooked foods are used in the liturgy the presence of  these cooking vessels suggests that non-liturgical activity took place in at least these four church sites, i.e. that gifts other than bread and wine for the liturgy were brought into the church either by the laity or clergy to be consumed on site or redistributed. They might even be taken as evidence that a communal meal or agape was shared in the church after the liturgical performance. When considered in conjunction with the amphorae, jugs and f lasks, and plates or bowls recovered at fourteen church sites, then it appears likely that the congregation brought assorted gifts to the chancel barrier and a portion is taken by the clergy for the liturgy, but the rest might be redistributed either to the clergy or congregation, or to both. In this hypothetical scenario the amphorae at the chancel barrier could serve both as collection points for wine brought in by the congregation and also as a serving station to dole out the unconsecrated wine to the needy or for the communal meal. Comparative analysis of repeated patterns of domestic artefactual deposition have also determined that there is no archaeological evidence (Table 6.1–6.7) that the sexes were segregated in church during the Early Byzantine period. Evidence from anatomically or osteologically sexed burials indicated that both males and females are buried in the same areas of the church at this time, and inscriptions for both sexes appear in all areas of the churches as well. The available archaeological evidence does not support the contention that the sexes are segregated in these churches at this time.

Conclusion

183

This research has extended our knowledge about the Early Byzantine Church, the activities that occur in some of these churches, and where they took place. The intention here is that archaeological evidence be used to complement existing historical and literary sources so as to broaden our understanding of  the Early Byzantine period. Much archaeological research has already been conducted in this field of research, and this book has relied extensively upon data produced by others and subjected this resource to intense scrutiny to try to understand how these churches were used. From this archaeological evidence it is possible to reconstruct the most likely way in which at least some of  these churches were used at this time. In summary, the occurrence at fourteen church sites of domestic artefacts such as amphorae, jugs and f lasks, and bowls and plates would appear to provide evidence that the congregation did bring gifts up to the chancel barrier in at least some of  these churches. The presence of  these artefacts in this location might be considered an adjunct to the liturgical performance wherein wine and bread are brought to the chancel barrier and the clergy select a portion for the liturgical performance, but the presence of amphorae would suggest that wine, if indeed they are used for wine, is stored at that location and possibly also doled out here. This supposition might receive some support from the presence of cooking pots in at least four church sites in the same location, and these either indicate that the congregation brought cooked food for the clergy, or that cooked food is brought into the church to redistribute to members of  the congregation, possibly as part of a communal meal or agape. This archaeological evidence indicates that paraliturgical and/or non-liturgical activity took place in churches at this time in at least some churches. The re-discovery of so many mosaic inscriptions in side chapels has confirmed that they function as diakonika. The indication from archaeological evidence for a second liturgical focus in these side chapels appears to confirm that the rite of prothesis took place in these side chapels. These observations appear to indicate that paraliturgical activity took place in these parekklesia or side chapels, i.e. preparation of selected bread and wine in the rite of prothesis prior to performance of  the liturgy in the church sanctuary.

184

Chapter 7

Based upon the available evidence, it would appear credible then to suggest that the congregation brought gifts up to the chancel barrier in the church where they were collected for redistribution. A portion was taken by the clergy to the diakonikon or side chapel for the rite of prothesis, and the clergy then processed into the church to the sanctuary to perform the liturgy, and then at the conclusion of  the ceremony retrace their steps into the diakonikon again. After the ceremony the surplus food and wine might be redistributed by the clergy for the communal meal and some given to the needy. This research is important in the sense that archaeological evidence can be used to better understand what activities are likely to have taken place in churches and where, and possibly even why. I think that Harold Pinter, the playwright, although writing in a dif ferent context, ef fectively sums up the archaeologists’ predicament: Apart from any other consideration, we are faced with the immense dif ficulty, if not the impossibility, of verifying the past. I don’t mean merely years ago, but yesterday, this morning. What took place, what was the nature of what took place, what happened? If one can speak of  the dif ficulty of  knowing what in fact took place yesterday, one can I think treat the present in the same way. What’s happening now?3

Perhaps more importantly this evidence can be used to refine questions about the Early Byzantine Church, and to ask new questions that drive further research.

3

Pinter (1991), ix–x. See also Burguière (2009), 194.

Chapter 8

Postscript: the ‘God phenomenon’

Although ambitious, as indicated in the first chapter, one function of  this book is to act as a driver for future research. There are a number of questions that fall beyond the remit of  this book, but which have arisen during the course of research towards its completion.

Church plans The catalogue of sites and artefacts compiled for this book is extensive and the conclusions drawn from examining the evidence therein derive credibility from this. There is a need to extend this line of enquiry to as many Early Byzantine churches as possible to determine the range of  the three church plans identified and how they each evolved through time. For example, the Constantinopolitan church plan appears to find a match at the fifth- or sixth-century Lower City Church at Amorium, which also has a protruding apse with an entrance to either side of it.1 Based upon the evidence from the catalogue of church sites, the Bema Church at Kalenderhane might also be relabelled as a Constantinopolitan church plan.2 This view can be based upon two linked observations. Firstly, although the ‘North Church’ was constructed first it was contemporary with the Bema Church, and as such would appear to function as the north chapel or diakonikon to the larger church. Secondly, the juxtaposition of  1 2

Ivison (2003), figure VIII/1. Striker and Kuban (1997), 45–58, and figure 23.

186

Chapter 8

the Bema Church and the ‘North Church’ does not allow suf ficient space between them for either a side apse or apsidal room, but would allow space for a major apsidal entrance, which would suggest that the Bema Church has the characteristics of a conventional Constantinopolitan church. Were the catalogue of church sites extended then more detailed analysis might be conducted into their evolution. It would be interesting, for example, to analyse whether there are bursts of church building activity that coincide with the conclusion of victorious military or diplomatic campaigns which produce concomitant inf luxes of wealth into the Empire. There are also other ‘church plans’ in evidence, and these would need to be added to any catalogue of church sites and submitted to the same scrutiny used here to determine whether the same artefactual evidence can provide insights into institutional behaviour and ritualised activities at church sites sharing these plans. There are also many references to ‘heresies’ in early texts and there must be some optimism that compiling a comprehensive catalogue of church sites might produce some archaeological evidence in support of  their existence, perhaps in conjunction with some input from historians.

Syrian-to-Roman church conversions There is evidence in the catalogue of church sites that many Syrian churches were later converted into triapsidal Roman churches with T-shaped sanctuaries and chancel barriers. They comprise nearly fifty per cent of  the Roman churches plans. This phenomenon needs to be further examined and the geographic scope extended. These converted churches are found not only in the Levant, but also at Novae and Poreč, and also possibly in Rome at the church of  St. Clemente. A re-evaluation of some church sites might reveal more such conversions, particularly those where screens and posts were recovered in the nave and interpreted as coming from galleries, when they might instead belong to the nave extension of a T-shaped chancel barrier.

Postscript: the ‘God phenomenon’

187

For example, there are a number of reasons to suspect that the church of  St. Polyeuktos excavated by Martin Harrison at Saraçhane is also a Syrianto-Roman church conversion.3 Firstly, no trace of an earlier church structure was found. Therefore it is possible that the foundations belong to the earlier church built by empress Eudocia (wife of emperor Theodosius II, A.D. 408–450) at a time when clergy from Antioch, such as St. John Chrysostom, serviced the Constantinopolitan Church. Of considerable importance is that pottery from the earliest stratigraphic sequences from the basement passages at Saraçhane is dated from the fourth and fifth century by Harrison and his team, and M.F. Hendy also observes the presence of coins attributable to the fourth and fifth century, although some of  these might belong to deposits that pre-date the church foundations.4 The church of  St. Polyeuktos cannot be a Constantinopolitan church plan servicing the Byzantine rite because it does not have a main entrance to

3 4

See Harrison (1989), 33, 127–136, and ill. 48, 167 and 171. Also Harrison (1986). For example, these stratigraphic layers include 314 QR/12, 285 P/14 with pottery dated to the 3–4th century, but see also 184–186, 168, 284–285, 312–316, 319–320, 323–326, 334–335, and 454–456. Harrison observes that there were a few fourth to fifth century artefacts recovered from inside the church along the middle of  the south passage (QR/13) such as a 0.205 metres long bronze rim (no. 128) from a metal vessel that dated to the fifth century. Hendy also states that the numismatic evidence ‘opens with a restrained number of  fourth- and fifth-century coins (nos. 1–35).’ Early coins were recovered inside the church at QR/12 (coin no. 2 and 15 with provenance 314 and 319), and STU/12–13 (coin no. 37 and 43 with provenance 566 and 573). See Harrison (1986), and also Gill (1986), 226–277. Some sixty-seven coins were recovered that pre-date the reign of  Justin I (A.D. 518–527). See Hendy (1986), 278–373, but particularly 278. Harrison favours a construction date of  A.D. 524–527 for St. Polyeuktos as proposed by Mango and Ševčenko, which is based on a dedicatory epigram, as does Hill. However Bardill observes that there were fragments of  fifth-century mosaic decorations and possibly marble heads, as well as fifth-century coins and a few brickstamps, attributable to the fifth century on stylistic grounds. These he links to the earlier ‘Eudokia’s church of  St. Polyeuktos’ that he dif ferentiates from the sixth-century church of  St. Polyeuktos. However, using evidence from brickstamps, he argues that bricks used to build the platform date from A.D. 508–512 and the superstructure was constructed from A.D. 517–527. See Harrison (1989), 71 and 111. Also Hill (1986), 223. And also Bardill (2004), 111–117, and 125–126.

188

Chapter 8

either side of a projecting apse. As noted by Mathews, the church is built on a raised platform and there is only one means of access to the church from the west via a grand staircase which leads up to the main entrance. If  there were apsidal entrances then, unless the ground level around the apse was artificially raised up, each one would also require a staircase leading down to ground level.5 Instead, the church plan suggests there is a room to either side of  the inscribed apse, which is diagnostic of  the Syrian church plan. Harrison thinks that the church was constructed in A.D. 524–527. The church is dedicated to St. Polyeuktos, an ‘obscure military saint martyred at Melitene in Cappadocia probably in 251.’6 Coincidentally, when the emperor Justinian rebuilt the Church of  Eirenê in Constantinople the remains of  forty martyrs (soldiers) from the city of  Melitenê in Armenia were discovered.7 It would seem highly unlikely that a Syrian church would be built in Constantinople at a time during the reign of  the pro-Chalcedonian emperor Justin I (A.D. 518–527) or his successor Justinian I (A.D. 527–565) when the Syrian church was being persecuted by them, and when other Syrian churches were being converted to triapsidal Roman church plans. Moreover it seems unlikely that a Monophysite Antiochene church with a Syrian plan, whether domed or not, would be built by Anicia Juliana in Constantinople, particularly since she had strong ties with Rome through her father Olybrius, who was emperor of  the Western Roman Empire in A.D. 472, and grandfather Valentinian III who was similarly emperor from A.D. 425–455. Could the church of  St. Polyeuktos at Saraçhane be instead another Syrian-to-Roman church conversion in which the foundations belong to an earlier Syrian church built by the empress Eudocia, and which is then converted into a triapsidal Roman church plan by Anicia Juliana during the reign of emperors Justin and Justinian? This hypothesis can be tested. If it is a Syrian-to-Roman church conversion then there might be a suppressed

5 6 7

Mathews (1971), 105. Harrison (1989), 33. Dewing (2002), 65–69, and 199–201.

Postscript: the ‘God phenomenon’

189

south chapel belonging to the earlier Syrian church plan that has not yet been excavated. Certainly the catalogue of sites is at least useful as a reference work against which sites such as Saraçhane, for which we have so little structural evidence, can be compared.

The diakonikon There are a number of questions that arise from the identification of side chapels with diakonika during the Early Byzantine period. 1. It is possible to test the hypothesis that Early Byzantine basilical churches have an accompanying side chapel that functioned as a diakonikon, and where the rite of prothesis took place. As noted elsewhere, nearly fifty per cent of  the church sites in the catalogue have not been excavated beyond the perimeter of  the church building. There is clearly scope to revisit these sites, where they still exist, and to conduct further excavations to determine whether they have side chapels, and if so, are they located to the north or south of  the church, or indeed anywhere else. This research needs to be extended into the Middle Byzantine period and beyond to determine whether they still have side chapels that fulfil this function, or whether Crowfoot is correct in his view that during this later period the rite of prothesis is moved into an apsidal room that serves as a prothesis chapel, and the diakonikon to another apsidal room. 2. Converted Syrian-to-Roman church plans af ford the strong possibility that there may be suppressed south chapels. This provides the potential for (a) excavation to uncover these for the first time, and (b) comparative analysis between the original suppressed south chapel and extant north chapel to determine what, if any, dif ferences there are between them. 3. Furthermore, there is a requirement for comparative analysis between apsidal and rectangular side chapels to determine whether their dif ferences are limited simply to ground plan, or whether they extend to decorative

190

Chapter 8

elements such as mosaics, inscriptions, and wall painting and also to artefactual evidence. Of particular interest is the appearance of column bases or drums in some side chapels with a rectangular plan, and this requires more detailed analysis. 4. What is the relationship between church and diakonikon? As noted, there are three distinct church plans: Constantinopolitan, Syrian and Roman. There appears to be a relationship between Constantinopolitan and Roman churches and a north chapel or diakonikon, and then the Syrian church plan with a south chapel. Once the location and function of  the diakonikon is established it is then possible to focus archaeological and historical/liturgical research upon determining the nature of  the relationship between these two centres of  liturgical activity on church sites – the church and its diakonikon. This association between these church plans and their diakonika allows for some interesting questions to be asked. What exactly is the nature of  this church-diakonika relationship? What does it say about the relationship between clergy and congregation, and how each perceives the liturgy? It allows for at least a two-tiered hierarchal structure, but is the relationship more complex than this? Does this hierarchy also apply to imperial and monastic churches as well? If we consider (figure 8.1) the Roman church plan, for example, then it is apparent that the congregation and clergy will not share the same experience during the church service. (i) The congregation are restricted to the nave and aisles in ‘zone 1’ of  the church and they will almost certainly never experience a liturgical service from the sanctuary. Almost without exception commentators and researchers describe churches and liturgy from the perspective of  the congregation. (ii) The clergy are able to pass through ‘zone 1’ and beyond the chancel barrier into ‘zone 2’ of  the church and have privileged access to the sanctuary, and so they experience the liturgical service from both perspectives in ‘zone 1’ and ‘zone 2.’ (iii) Early liturgies suggest that not all clergy have access to the diakonikon and that only a privileged group have access to ‘zone 3.’

Postscript: the ‘God phenomenon’

191

(iv) Of particular interest is that even within the inner sanctum of  the diakonikon there is also a chancel barrier, which indicates that there is a further elite who not only have access to the diakonikon, but who can pass through this barrier into ‘zone 4’ to access the sanctuary in the diakonikon. We might hypothesise that the liturgy, as performed in the church, is secondary to the ceremony performed within the inner sanctum – the ‘holy of  holies.’ This particular hypothetical scenario would indicate a four-tier hierarchal structure within Early Byzantine basilical churches. Certainly the diakonikon might accurately be described as the alpha and omega of  the liturgical service – the beginning and the end – since both the liturgical artefacts and the clergy performing the liturgy set out from here, and then return to the diakonikon at the close of  the performance. In this respect we are particularly fortunate in that to date many excavations at church sites have focused exclusively upon either the church building or in many cases the sanctuary, and therefore on many of  the sites the side chapels remain to be identified and excavated. Similarly where there are Syrian-to-Roman church conversions then it may be that both the later Roman north chapels and their earlier Syrian south chapels remain to be excavated and so the question surrounding the nature of  the churchdiakonikon relationship can be suitably addressed. The location of  the side chapel as a distinct unit within the basilical church complex lends itself  to alternate hierarchal reconstructions and, while it is likely that there exists a ‘step-wise’ ascending hierarchy such as that illustrated above, there are at least three alternate interpretations of  the church-diakonikon relationship, some of which allow for cultic practices. (i) Symbiotic relationships wherein two separate cults co-exist and are serviced in parallel – one in the church, and the other in the diakonikon. (ii) An endosymbiotic relationship in which one cult is absorbed by the other, but it continues to function as a recognizable integral component of  the larger cult or religion – a cult within a cult. (iii) A parasitical relationship.

192

Chapter 8

The potential for complex relationships within the early Christian Church are suggested, for example, by Philip Amidon when he refers to groups of  ‘apparently polytheistic Christians now usually referred to as “gnostics”; they were in full vigor throughout the fourth and fifth centuries and, as we have seen, had often managed to join monotheistic Christian churches while retaining and promoting their own views.’8 This is a time of considerable religious f lux, and it may be that other similar groups infiltrated or inveigled their way into the Early Byzantine Christian Church, and because of  this the church-diakonikon relationship is critical to understanding the religious nature of  the Early Church. Also, given that the liturgical performance begins and ends in the side chapel or diakonikon, it is more likely that liturgical artefacts will be recovered here than anywhere else on a church site, since these artefacts are apparently stored here between each liturgical performance.9 5. There is an intriguing area of research in relation to the diakonikon, which might be described as the ‘God’ phenomenon. Amidon observes that Philostorgius’ sect ‘taught him, in the strongest contrast to Gnosticism, that God’s very substance can be known, then all the more can his will be known, and for Philostorgius the events of  history, or nature, and of  human endeavor, reveal that will.’10 Should analysis of  this ‘God’ phenomenon be the sole prerogative of  historians, or could archaeologists complement this inquiry? If  there is some tangible relationship between either the laity or clergy and ‘God’ then would it manifest itself in the archaeological record? 8 9

10

Amidon (2007), xix. Procopius of Caesarea notes that the treasure looted by Titus from the Second Temple was brought to Rome and placed in the temple of  Jupiter Capitolinus. When the city is later sacked by the Vandals they carry of f  the treasure to Carthage. Then when Belisarius later seizes Carthage it is brought to Constantinople. However Justinian then sends the ‘treasure of  the Jews, which Titus […] had brought to Rome after the capture of  Jerusalem’ to the ‘sanctuaries of  the Christian in Jerusalem.’ It is highly unlikely that this ‘treasure’ still remains to be found in church sanctuaries in the area, but quite possible that some bric a brac or lesser items from the Second Temple in Jerusalem might still be recovered in the diakonika of  these churches. Dewing (2000), 281. Amidon (2007), xxi.

Postscript: the ‘God phenomenon’

193

If  the clergy have a more intense relationship with this phenomenon then would this be ref lected in some discernible way in side chapels or diakonika where the rite of prothesis occurs, and if so how could we measure the intensity of  that relationship, or whether it even exists? This line of  thought is prompted by the observation that it is highly unlikely that archaeologists will ever get to excavate a living fire, and yet many archaeological sites provide tangible physical evidence that there was a fire on the site. Forensic investigation of secondary or indirect evidence such as charred wood, heat damaged stone or brick, and melted glass can unveil evidence for the location of a fire, its intensity and scale.11 There are reportedly at least forty dif ferent techniques that can be used to locate the seat of a fire. Perhaps the most useful for archaeologists are (i) measurement of depth of char, (ii) spalling of plaster, (iii) distortion of glass and (iv) thermal direction indicators.12 Would it also be possible to use secondary or indirect evidence to determine the nature of  the physical or spiritual interphase between the ‘God’ phenomenon and those humans (clergy) who experience it, and in whom the scale and intensity of  this interaction appears to burn fiercest? There is obviously some debate as to the nature of  this experience, whether it relates to an external relationship pertaining to a supernatural being, if it is perhaps an inner psychological experience, or even something much more basic such as the imperial cult wherein an emperor or empress temporarily fulfils that role. Whatever its nature, if it has an ef fect upon clergy then where they gather its impact will be magnified, and it might be in the diakonikon, i.e. the ‘house of  the deacons,’ where the rite of prothesis occurs that secondary or indirect physical evidence such as mosaics and wall decorations, literature, artefacts and evidence for ritual could provide the best evidence for the nature of  this experience.

11 12

See Ide (2002), 133–158. See for example Ide (2002), 133–158. Also Lyle (2004), 113–126.

194

Chapter 8

2

4 1 3

Figure 8.1. Roman church plan and diakonikon, with a ‘step-wise’ hierarchal structure

Bibliography

Adams, William Y., ‘Architectural evolution of  the Nubian Church architecture, 500– 1400 a.d.’, Journal of  the American Research Center in Egypt, IV (1965), 87–139 ——, Meinarti IV and V. The church and cemetery. The history of  Meinarti: an interpretive overview (Sudan Archaeological Research Society, Oxford, 2003) Adams, William Y., and Ernest W. Adams, Archaeological typology and practical reality: a dialectical approach to artifact classification and sorting (Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne and Sydney, 1991) Alliata, Eugenio, and Susanna Bianchi, ‘The architectural phasing of  the Memorial of  Moses’, in Mount Nebo: new archaeological excavations 1967–1997, ed. Michele Piccirillo and Eugenio Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 27, Jerusalem, 1998), 151–191 Altet, Xavier Barral I., The Early Middle Ages: from Late Antiquity to a.d. 1000 (Köln, London, Madrid, New York, Paris and Tokyo, 2002) Amidon, Philip R., Philostorgius: church history (Society of  Biblical Literature, 23, Atlanta, 2007) Amr, Khairieth, ‘Storage jars (Phase VII)’, The Petra Church, ed. Patricia Maynor Bikai (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001), 367 Anastos, Milton V., ‘The emperor Justin I’s role in the restoration of  Chalcedonian doctrine, 518–519’, Vyzantina-Thessaloniki, 13.1 (1985), 126–139 Angold, Michael, Byzantium: the bridge from Antiquity to the Middle Ages (London, 2002) Asano, Kazuo, ‘Church III on Gemiler Ada’, in The survey of  Early Byzantine sites on Ölündeniz area (Lycia, Turkey): the first preliminary report, ed. Shigebumi Tsuji (Osaka, 1995), 72–78 —— (ed.), Island of  St. Nicolas. Excavation of  Gemiler Island on Mediterranean Coast of  Turkey (Research Group for Byzantine Lycia, Hirosawa, 1998) —— (ed.), The island of  St. Nicholas: excavation and survey of  the Gemiler Island area, Lycia, Turkey (Osaka, 2010) Aviam, Mordechai, ‘Horvath Hesheq – a unique church in Upper Galilee: preliminary report’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: New discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 351–377

196 Bibliography ——, ‘Horvat Hesheq: A church in Upper Galilee’, Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 54–65 ——, ‘Recent excavations and surveys of churches and monasteries in Western Galilee’, One land – many cultures. Archaeological studies in honour of  Stanislao Lof freda OFM, ed. G. Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni and L. Daniel Chrupcała (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 41, Jerusalem, 2003), 41–59 Avi-Yonah, M., ‘The mosaics’, in Excavations at Shavei Zion: the Early Christian church. Report of  the excavations carried out by the Israel Department of  Antiquities and Museums (in cooperation with the Hebrew University of  Jerusalem) (Centro per le Antichità e la Storia dell’Arte del Vicino Oriente, Monografie di Archaeologia e d’Arte, 2, Rome, 1967), 47–63 Babić, Gordana, Les chapelles annexes des églises Byzantines: fonction liturgique et programmes iconographies (Bibliothèque des Cahiers Archéologiques, 3, Paris, 1969) Bagatti, B., The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine. History and archaeology (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Collectio Minor, 4, Jerusalem, 1984), 307–308 Bagatti, P. Bellarmino, L’Archeologia Cristiana in Palestina (Le Piccole Storie Illustrate, 97, Firenze, 1962) Bailey, D.M., Excavations at El-Ashmunein IV. Hermopolis Magna: buildings of  the Roman period (London, 1991) Balderstone, Susan, Early Church architectural forms: a theologically contextual typology for the eastern Churches of  the 4th–6th centuries (Buried History Monograph, 3, Melbourne, 2007) Baly, T.J. Colin, ‘Pottery’, Excavations at Nessana, ed. H. Dunscombe Colt (London, 1962), 270–303 Barag, D., ‘Glass vessels’, in The excavations of  Kursi – Gergesa, ed. Vassilios Tzaferis (‘Atiqot, 16, Jerusalem, 1983), 37–38 Baramki, D., ‘The pottery from Kh. el-Mefjer’, Quarterly of  the Department of  Antiquities in Palestine, 10 (1940–1942), 65–103 Bardill, Jonathan, Brickstamps of  Constantinople (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology, Oxford, 2004) Barker, Philip, Techniques of archaeological excavation (London, 1995) Barnish, Samuel, ‘Christians and countrymen at San Vincenzo, c. a.d. 400–550’, in San Vincenzo al Volturno 2: the 1980–86 excavations part II, ed. Richard Hodges (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 9, London, 1995), 131–137 Baur, P.V.C., ‘Glassware’, in Gerasa: city of  the Decapolis. An account embodying the record of a joint excavation conducted by Yale University and the British School of  Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale University and the American

Bibliography

197

Schools of  Oriental Research (1930–1931, 1933–1934), ed. Carl H. Kraeling (New Haven, 1938), 505–546 Bayliss, Richard, Provincial Cilicia and the archaeology of  temple conversion (BAR Int. Ser. 1281, Oxford, 2004) Bellinger, A.R., ‘Coins’, in Gerasa: city of  the Decapolis. An account embodying the record of a joint excavation conducted by Yale University and the British School of  Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale University and the American Schools of  Oriental Research (1930–1931, 1933–1934), ed. Carl H. Kraeling (New Haven, 1938), 497–503 Berman, Constance, ‘How much space did medieval nuns have or need?’, in Shaping community: the art and archaeology of monasticism. Papers from a symposium held at the Frederick R. Weisman Museum, University of Minnesota, March 10–12, 2000, ed. Sheila McNally (BAR, Int. Ser., 941, Oxford, 2001), 101–116 Berman, Elizabeth Kessin, ‘Glazed pottery’, in Excavations at Capernaum, volume 1: 1978–1982, ed. Rafi Grafman (Winona Lake, 1989), 115–130 Betlyon, John Wilson, ‘Coins from the 1992–93 excavations’, The Petra Church, ed. Patricia Maynor Bikai (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001), 384–390 Biernacki, Andrzej Boleslaw, ‘The pulpit in the episcopal basilica at Novae (Svištov) (An attempt at a reconstruction)’, Balcanica Posnaniensa, 7 (1995), 315–332 —— (ed.), Novae: Studies and materials I (Poznań, 1995) Biernacki, Andrzej B., and P. Pawlak, ‘Novae – Western Sector, 1995. Preliminary report on the excavations of  the archaeological expedition of  Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań’, Archeologia, 48 (1997 [1998]), 35–42 Bikai, Patricia M., ‘The Ridge Church at Petra’, Annual of  the Department of  Antiquities of  Jordan, 40 (1996), 481–486 Bikai, Patricia Maynor (ed.), The Petra Church (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001) Bospachieva, Mina, ‘A small Early Christian basilica with mosaics at Philippopolis (Plovdiv)’, Archaeologia Bulgarica, 6/2 (2002), 55–76 Bottini, G.C., L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (ed.), Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990) Bottini, G. Claudio, Leah Di Segni and L. Daniel Chrupcała (ed.), One land many cultures. Archaeological studies in honour of  Stanislao Lof freda OFM (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 41, Jerusalem, 2003) Brandenburg, Hugo, Ancient churches of  Rome from the fourth to the seventh century: the dawn of  Christian architecture in the West (Turnhout, 2005)

198 Bibliography Brightman, F.E. and C.E. Hammond (ed.), Liturgies Eastern and Western, being the texts original or translated of  the principal liturgies of  the Church (Oxford, 1896) Brooke, Christopher, ‘Religious sentiment and church design in the later Middle Ages’, Medieval church and society (New York, 1971), 162–182 Brown, Katherine, The gold breast chain from the early Byzantine period in the RömischGermanisches Zentralmuseum (Mainz, 1984) Brown, K.A., ‘Gender and sex: what can ancient DNA tell us?’, Ancient Biomolecules, 2 (1998), 3–15 Brown, Shelby, ‘“Ways of seeing” women in Antiquity: an introduction to Feminism in Classical and Ancient art history’, in Naked truths, ed. Ann Olga KoloskiOstrow and Claire Lyons (New York, 1997), 12–42 Bryer, A.A.M., and D. Winfield, The Byzantine monuments and topography of  the Pontos (Washington, DC, 1985) Buikstra, Jane E., and Douglas H. Ubelaker, Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains (Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series, 44, Fayetteville, 1994) Burguière, André, The Annales School: an intellectual history, trans. Jane Marie Todd (Ithaca and London, 2009) Butcher, Kevin, ‘The coins’, in Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Roman, Late Roman, and Early Byzantine city. Excavations 1985–1992, ed. Andrew Poulter ( Journal of  Roman Studies Monograph, 8, London, 1995), 269–314 Butler, Alfred J., Ancient Coptic churches of  Egypt, 2 volumes (Oxford, 1884) Butler, Howard Crosby, Architecture and other arts. Part II of  the publications of an American archaeological expedition to Syria in 1899–1900 under the patronage of  V. Everit Macy, Clarence M. Hyde, B. Talbot B. Hyde, and IN. Phelps Stokes (New York, 1903) Cabaniss, Allen (trans.), ‘Ardo: The life of saint Benedict, abbot of  Aniane and of  Inde’, in Soldiers of  Christ: saints and saints’ lives from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. Thomas F.X. Noble and Thomas Head (University Park, PA, and London, 1995), 213–254 Calderon, Rivka, ‘The pottery’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999), 135–147 Cameron, Averil, ‘Sacred and profane love: thoughts on Byzantine gender’, in Women, men and eunuchs: gender in Byzantium, ed. Liz James (London and New York, 1997), 1–23 Caraher, William R., Church, society and the sacred in early Christian Greece (unpublished thesis, Ohio State University, 2003)

Bibliography

199

Caseau, Béatrice, ‘Objects in churches: the testimony of inventories’, in Objects in context, objects in use: material spatiality in Late Antiquity, ed. Luke Lavan, Ellen Swift and Toon Putzeys (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 551–579 ——, ‘Ordinary objects in Christian healing sanctuaries’, in Objects in context, objects in use: material spatiality in Late Antiquity, ed. Luke Lavan, Ellen Swift and Toon Putzeys (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 625–654 Christie, Neil (ed.), Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina and San Liberato (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 4, London, 1991) Christie, N., and C.M. Daniels, ‘Santa Cornelia: the excavation of an early medieval papal estate and a medieval monastery’, in Three South Etrurian churches, ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monograph of  the British School at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 1–209 ——, ‘Introduction’, in Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina and San Liberato, ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 3–5 ——, ‘The excavations’, in Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina and San Liberato, ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 13–68 ——, ‘The burials’, in Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina and San Liberato, ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 69–77 ——, ‘Early medieval and medieval sculptural fragments’, in Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina and San Liberato, ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 109–117 ——, ‘Interpretations and conclusions’, in Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina and San Liberato, ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 173–202 ——, ‘Appendix I. The documents’, in Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina and San Liberato, ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 203–207 Christie, N., S. Gibson and J.B. Ward-Perkins, ‘San Liberato: a medieval church near Bracciano’, in Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina and San Liberato, ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 313–352 Claridge, Amanda, ‘Elements from a Cosmatesque f loor and other veneer’, in Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina and San Liberato, ed.

200 Bibliography Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 109–117 Cole, Emily (ed.), The grammar of architecture (Boston, New York and London, 2002) Cohen, Einat, ‘The glass’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999), 149–150 Cohen, Rudolf, ‘A Byzantine church and its mosaic f loors at Kissufim’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 277–282 Colt, H. Dunscombe (ed.), Excavations at Nessana (London, 1962) ——, ‘Introduction’, in Excavations at Nessana, ed. H. Dunscombe Colt (London, 1962), 1–24 ——, ‘Architectural details’, in Excavations at Nessana, ed. H. Dunscombe Colt (London, 1962), 48–50 Connolly, Sean, ‘Cogitosus’s Life of  St. Brigit’, Journal of  the Royal Society of  Antiquaries of  Ireland, 117 (1987), 5–10 Connolly, S., and J.-M. Picard (trans.), ‘Cogitosus: Life of  Saint Brigit’, Journal of  the Royal Society of  Antiquaries of  Ireland, 117 (1987), 11–27 Constans, Nicholas (trans.), ‘Life of  St. Mary/Marinos’, in Holy women of  Byzantium: the saints’ lives in English translation, ed. Alice-Mary Talbot (Washington, D.C., 1996), 1–12 Constantelos, Demetrios J., ‘Liturgy and liturgical daily life in the medieval Greek world – the Byzantine Empire’, in The liturgy of  the Medieval church, ed. Thomas J. Hef fernan and E. Ann Matter (Kalamazoo, 2001), 109–143 Cooper, James, and Arthur John MacLean (trans.), The Testament of our Lord. Translated into English from the Syriac with introduction and notes (Edinburgh, 1902) Cormack, Robin, Byzantine art (Oxford, 2000) Coulston, Jonathon, and Mary Gough, ‘The coins and small finds at Alahan’, in Alahan: an early Christian monastery in southern Turkey based on the work of  Michael Gough, ed. Mary Gough (Pontifical Institute of  Medieval Studies, Studies and Texts, 73, Ontario, 1985), 62–74 Crow, J., and A. Bryer, ‘Survey in Trabzon and Gümüşhane Vilayet, Turkey, 1992–1994’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 51 (1997), 283–289 Crowfoot, J.W., ‘The Christian churches’, in Gerasa: city of  the Decapolis. An account embodying the record of a joint excavation conducted by Yale University and the British School of  Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale University and the American Schools of  Oriental Research (1930–1931, 1933–1934), ed. Carl H. Kraeling (New Haven, 1938), 171–262

Bibliography

201

——, Early churches in Palestine (London, 1941) Curl, James Stevens, Classical architecture. An introduction to its vocabulary and essentials, with a select glossary of  terms (London, 2001) Dark, Ken, Byzantine pottery (Stroud, 2001) Dark, Ken, and Jan Kostenec, ‘The Hagia Sophia project, Istanbul, 2004–8’, Bulletin of  British Byzantine Studies, 35 (2009), 56–68 Dauphin, C., ‘On the pilgrim’s way to the Holy City’, Bulletin of  the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, 2 (1982–83), 25–31 ——, ‘Tempe grec, église byzantine et cimetière musulman: la basilique de Dor en Israël’, Proche-Orient Chrétien, 36 (1986), 14–22 Dauphin, Claudine, ‘Dora-Dor: A station for pilgrims in the Byzantine period on their way to Jerusalem’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir (Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, 1993), 90–97 Dauphin, Claudine, and Gershon Edelstein, L’église Byzantine de Nahariya (Israël) étude archéologique, ed. Claudine Dauphin (Byzantina, 5, Thessalonica, 1984) Dauphin, Claudine, and Gershon Edelstein, ‘The Byzantine church at Nahariya’, in Ancient Churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 49–53 Dauphin, Claude, and Shimon Gibson, ‘Ancient settlements in their landscapes: the results of  ten years of survey on the Golan Heights (1978–1988)’, Bulletin of  the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, 12 (1992–93), 7–31 ——, ‘The Byzantine city of  Dor/Dora discovered’, Bulletin of  the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, 14 (1994–1995), 9–38 Day, Florence E., ‘Islamic Glazed Wares’, in A Byzantine church at Khirbat al-Karak, ed. Elizabeth B. Hauser (The University of  Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 85, Chicago, 1960), 40–48 Delougaz, Pinhas, ‘The objects’, in A Byzantine church at Khirbat al-Karak, ed. Elizabeth B. Hauser (The University of  Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 85, Chicago, 1960), 30–52 Delougaz, Pinhas, and Richard C. Haines, A Byzantine church at Khirbat al-Karak, ed. Elizabeth B. Hauser (The University of  Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 85, Chicago, 1960) ——, ‘Notes to Tables I and II’, in A Byzantine church at Khirbat al-Karak, ed. Elizabeth B. Hauser (The University of  Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 85, Chicago, 1960) ——, ‘Concluding remarks’, in A Byzantine church at Khirbat al-Karak, ed. Elizabeth B. Hauser (The University of  Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 85, Chicago, 1960), 56–59 Dennis, George (trans.), ‘Ath. Rule: rule of  Athanasios the Athonite for the Lavra monastery’, in Byzantine monastic foundation documents, ed. John Thomas and

202 Bibliography Angela Constantinides Hero (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 25, Washington, D.C., 2000), 205–231 Descoeudres, Georges, Die pastophorien im syro-byzantinischen Osten. Eine untersuchung zu architektur- und liturgiegeschichtlichen problemen (Schriften zur Geistesgeschichte des Östlichen Europa, 16, Wiesbaden, 1983) Dewing, H.B. (trans.), Procopius: the anecdota or secret history (Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass., 1998) ——, Procopius: history of  the wars, books III–IV (Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass., 2000) ——, Procopius: buildings (Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass., 2002) Durkheim, Emile, The rules of sociological method: and selected texts on sociology and its method, ed. Stephen Lukes, and trans. W.D. Halls (Contemporary Social Theory series, Macmillan Press Ltd., London and Basingstoke, 1982) ——, The elementary forms of religious life, trans. Karen E. Fields (The Free Press, New York, 1995) Duval, Noël, ‘L’architecture chrétienne et les pratiques liturgiques en Jordanie en rapport avec la Palestine: Recherches nouvelles’, in ‘Churches built in ancient times’. Recent studies in Early Christian archaeology, ed. Kenneth Painter (The Society of  Antiquaries of  London, Occasional Paper, 16, Accordia Research Centre, Specialist Studies of  the Mediterranean, 1, London, 1994), 149–212 Eaverly, Mary Ann, ‘Color and gender in ancient painting: a pan-Mediterranean approach’, in From the ground up: beyond gender theory in archaeology. Proceedings of  the fifth gender and archaeology conference, University of  Wisconsin-Milwaukee, October 1998, ed. Nancy L. Wicker and Bettina Arnold (BAR, Int. Ser., 812, 1999), 5–10 Edelstein, G., ‘Les trouvailles: Objets de bronze, ceramique, verre et monaies’, in L’église byzantine de Nahariya (Israel). Etude archéologique, ed. C. Dauphin and G. Edelstein (Thessalonica, 1984), 97–106 Egger, Rudolf, Frühchristliche Kirchenbauten im südlichen Norikum (Vienna, 1916) Excavation manual, 11 (School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, June–July 2010) Excavation standards manual (Environmental and heritage service, Belfast, undated) Falkner, R.K., ‘The pottery’, in Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Roman, Late Roman, and Early Byzantine city. The pottery and glass, ed. A.G. Poulter (London, 1999), 55–296 Featherstone, Jef frey (trans., with introduction and notes by Cyril Mango), ‘Life of  St. Matrona of  Perge’, in Holy women of  Byzantium: the saints’ lives in English translation, ed. Alice-Mary Talbot (Washington, D.C., 1996), 13–64 Ferguson, Everett, Baptism in the Early Church: history, theology, and liturgy in the first five centuries (Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, 2009)

Bibliography

203

Fiaccadori, Gianfranco (trans.), ‘Pantelleria: typikon of  John for the monastery of  St. John the Forerunner on Pantelleria’, in Byzantine monastic foundation documents, ed. John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 25, Washington, D.C., 2000), 59–66 Fiema, Zbigniew T., ‘Reconstructing the history of  the Petra Church: dating and phasing’, in The Petra Church, ed. Patricia Maynor Bikai (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001), 7–119 Fiema, Zbigniew, ‘Storing in the church: artefacts in Room I of  the Petra Church’, in Objects in context, objects in use: material spatiality in Late Antiquity, ed. Luke Lavan, Ellen Swift and Toon Putzeys (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 607–623 Fiema, Zbigniew T., and Robert Schick, ‘Excavation methodology’, in The Petra Church, ed. Patricia Maynor Bikai (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001), xiii–xv Fiema, Zbigniew T., Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos, Tomasz Waliszewski and Robert Schick, in The Petra Church, ed. Patricia Maynor Bikai (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001) Fitzgerald, G.M., Beth-Shan excavations III, 1921–3: the Arab and Byzantine levels (Philadelphia, 1931) ——, A sixth century monastery at Beth-Shan (Scythopolis) (Publications of the Palestine section of  the University Museum, University of  Pennsylvania, IV, University of  Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1939) Foerster, R., and E. Richsteig (ed.), Choricii Gazaei opera (Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, Stuttgart, 1972) Forsythe, George H., and Kurt Weitzmann, The monastery of  Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai: the church and fortress of  Justinian, plates (Ann Arbor, 1973) Foss, Clive, ‘The Lycian coast in the Byzantine age’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 48 (1994), 1–52 Frankel, R., J. Patrich and Y. Tsafrir, ‘The oil press at Horvath Beit Loya’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 287–300 Freshfield, E., ‘On Byzantine churches and the modifications made in their arrangements owing to the necessities of  the Greek ritual’, Archaeologia, 44 (1873), 383–392 Gandolfo, Francesco, Le basiliche armene, IV–VII secolo (Studi di architettura medioevale armena, V, Rome, 1982) Gartkiewicz, Przemysław M., Nubia I. Dongola 2. The cathedral in Old Dongola and its antecedents (Warsaw, 1990)

204 Bibliography Gáspár, Dorottya, Christianity in Roman Pannonia: an evaluation of  Early Christian finds and sites from Hungary (BAR, Int. Ser., 1010, Oxford, 2002) Gazit, Dan, and Yeshayahu Lender, ‘The Church of  St. Stephen at Horvat Be’er-shemca’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 273–276 Gerber, Yvonne, ‘Selected ceramic deposits’, in The Petra Church, ed. Patricia Maynor Bikai (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001), 359–366 Gerstel, Sharon E.J., Beholding the sacred mysteries: programs of  the Byzantine sanctuary (Seattle, 1999) Gilchrist, Roberta, Gender and archaeology: contesting the past (London and New York, 1999) Gill, M.V., ‘The small finds’, in Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, 1. The excavations, structures, architectural decoration, small finds, coins, bones, and molluscs, ed. R.M. Harrison (Princeton and Washington, 1986), 226–277 Gittos, Helen, Liturgy, architecture and sacred places in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, forthcoming) Godlewski, Wlodzimierz, ‘A new approach to the Christianization of  Makuria: an archaeological note’, Biblique d’Études, 106.2 (1993), 169–176 Gorodetsky, Sue (ed.), The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987 (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999) Gould, Richard A. and Michael B. Schif fer (ed.), Modern material culture: the archaeology of us (New York, London, Toronto, Sydney and San Francisco, 1981) Gould, Stephen Jay, The structure of evolutionary theory (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 2002) Grace, Virginia, ‘Stamped handles of commercial amphoras’, in Excavations at Nessana, ed. H. Dunscombe Colt (London, 1962), 106–130 Grumel, V., La Chronologie (Traité d’Études Byzantines I), (Paris, 1958) Habas, Lihi, ‘The marble furniture’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999), 119–132 Haines, Richard C., ‘The excavations’, in A Byzantine church at Khirbat al-Karak, ed. Elizabeth B. Hauser (The University of  Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 85, Chicago, 1960), 4–22 Haldon, John, Byzantium: a history (Charleston and Stroud, 2000) Harden, D.B., ‘Glass’, in Excavations at Nessana, ed. H. Dunscombe Colt (London, 1962), 76–91

Bibliography

205

Harris, Anthea, Byzantium, Britain & the West. The archaeology of cultural identity a.d. 400–650 (Charleston and Stroud, 2003) Harris, Edward C., Principles of archaeological stratigraphy (London, New York Toronto, Sydney and San Francisco, 1979) Harrison, Martin, ‘The inscriptions and chronology of  Alahan’, in Alahan: an early Christian monastery in southern Turkey based on the work of  Michael Gough, ed. Mary Gough (Pontifical Institute of  Medieval Studies, Studies and Texts, 73, Ontario, 1985), 21–34 ——, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, 1. The excavations, structures, architectural decoration, small finds, coins, bones, and molluscs (Princeton and Washington, 1986) ——, A temple for Byzantium. The discovery and excavation of  Anicia Juliana’s palace church in Istanbul (Austin and London, 1989) Harvey, S. Ashbrook, ‘Remembering pain: Syriac historiography and the separation of  the churches’, Byzantion, 58 (1988), 295–308 Hayes, Dawn Marie, ‘From boundaries blurred to boundaries defined: clerical emphasis on the limits of sacred space in England and France during the Later Middle Ages’, in Holy ground: theoretical issues relating to the landscape and material culture of ritual space. Papers from a session held at the Theoretical Archaeology Group conference, Cardif f 1999, ed. A.T. Smith and A. Brookes (BAR, Int. Ser., 956, Oxford, 2001), 85–90 Hayes, J.W., Late Roman pottery (London, 1972) ——, A supplement to Late Roman pottery (London, 1980) ——, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, volume 2: the pottery (Princeton and Washington, 1992) Heintz, Molly Fulghum, ‘The art and craft of earning a living’, in Byzantine women and their world, ed. Marsha Pomerantz (Cambridge, Mass., New Haven and London, 2003), 139–159 ——, Magic, medicine, and prayer’, in Byzantine women and their world, ed. Marsha Pomerantz (Cambridge, MA, New Haven and London, 2003), 275–305 Hendy, M.F., ‘The coins’, in Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, 1. The excavations, structures, architectural decoration, small finds, coins, bones, and molluscs, ed. R.M. Harrison (Princeton and Washington, 1986), 278–373 Hermann Jnr., John J., ‘Finds’, in The Petra Church, ed. Patricia Maynor Bikai (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001), 337–339 Herrin, Judith, ‘In search of  Byzantine women: three avenues of approach’, in Images of women in Antiquity, ed. Averil Cameron and Amélie Kuhrt (London, 1993), 167–189

206 Bibliography Heyworth, Mike, ‘Archaeology in Britain: it all seemed so good’, British Archaeology (March/April 2009), 12–19 Hill, James N., ‘Prehistoric social organization in the American Southwest: theory and method’, in Reconstructing prehistoric Pueblo societies, ed. W.A. Longacre (Albuquerque, 1970), 11–58 Hill, Stephen, ‘The brickstamps’, in Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, 1. The excavations, structures, architectural decoration, small finds, coins, bones, and molluscs, ed. R.M. Harrison (Princeton and Washington, 1986), 207–223 ——, The Early Byzantine churches of  Cilicia and Isauria (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, 1, Aldershot, 1996) Hirschfeld, Yizhar, ‘List of  the Byzantine monasteries in the Judean Desert’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. Giovanni Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni and Eugenio Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 1–90 ——, ‘Euthymius and his monastery in the Judean desert’, Liber Annuus – Studii Biblici Franciscanum, 43 (1993), 339–371 ——, ‘Monasteries and churches in the Judean Desert in the Byzantine Period’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 149–154 ——, ‘The cave-church at Khirbet ed-Deir’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 244–259 ——, The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999) ——, ‘Introduction’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999), 1–8 ——, ‘The architectural remains of  the monastery’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999), 9–95 ——, ‘The monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir: General discussion’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999), 153–176 Hirschfeld, Y., and R. Birger, ‘Khirbet Ed-Deir (Désert de Juda) – 1981–1984’, Revue Biblique, 93 (1986), 276–284 Hirst, S.M., and S.M. Wright, ‘Bordesley Abbey church: a long term research excavation’, in The archaeology of rural monasteries, ed. R. Gilchrist and H. Mytum (BAR, 203, Oxford, 1989), 295–312

Bibliography

207

Hirst, S.M., D.A. Walsh and S.M. Wright, Bordesley Abbey II. Second report on excavations at Bordesley Abbey, Redditch, Hereford-Worcestershire (BAR, 111, Oxford, 1983) Hizmi, Hananya, ‘The Byzantine church at Khirbet el-Beiyûdât: Preliminary report’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: New discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini, Leah Di Segni and E. Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 245–264 ——, ‘Monasteries and churches in the Judean Desert in the Byzantine Period’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 149–154 ——, ‘The Byzantine church at Khirbet el-Beiyûdât in the Lower Jordan Valley’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir (Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, 1993), 155–163 ——, ‘The cave-church at Khirbet ed-Deir’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 244–259 ——, ‘Introduction’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999), 1–8 ——, ‘The architectural remains of  the monastery’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999), 9–95 ——, ‘The monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir: General discussion’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999), 153–176 Hobbs, Richard, ‘The coins’, in Excavations at the Mola di Monte Gelato: a Roman and Medieval settlement in South Etruria, ed. T.W. Potter and A.C. King (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 11, London, 1997), 236–241 Hodder, Ian, Symbols in action: Ethnoarchaeological studies in material culture (Cambridge, 1982) ——, Reading the past. Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology (Cambridge, 1991) ——, The archaeological process: an introduction (Oxford, 1999) ——, ‘Introduction: A review of contemporary theoretical debates in archaeology’, in Archaeological Theory Today, ed. I. Hodder (Oxford and Malden, 2002), 1–13 Hoddinott, R.F., Early Byzantine churches in Macedonia and Southern Serbia. A study of  the origins and the initial development of  East Christian Art (New York and London, 1963)

208 Bibliography Hodges, Richard, ‘The late Roman settlement at San Vincenzo al Volturno’, in San Vincenzo al Volturno 2: the 1980–86 excavations part II, ed. Richard Hodges (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 9, London, 1995), 122–130 Hunter-Anderson, Rosalind L., ‘A theoretical approach to the study of  house form’, in For theory building in archaeology. Essays on faunal remains, aquatic resources, spatial analysis, and systemic modelling, ed. Lewis R. Binford (Studies in Archaeology, New York, San Francisco and London, 1977), 287–315 Ide, R., ‘Fire investigation’, in Crime scene to court: the essentials of  forensic science, ed. P. White (Cambridge, 2002), 133–158 Insoll, Timothy. Archaeology, ritual, and religion (London and New York, 2004) —— (ed.), Case studies in archaeology and World Religion. The proceedings of  the Cambridge conference (BAR S755, Oxford, 1999) —— (ed.), Archaeology and World Religion (London, 2001) —— (ed.), Belief in the past. The proceedings of  the 2002 Manchester conference on archaeology and religion (BAR, Int. Ser., 1212, Oxford, 2004) Ivison, Eric Addiss, Mortuary practices in Byzantium (c950–1453): an archaeological contribution (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Birmingham, 1993) Ivison, Eric A., ‘Polychromy in the Lower City Church: an overview’, in Amorium Reports II: research papers and technical reports, ed. C.S. Lightfoot (BAR, Int. Ser., 1170, Oxford, 2003), 119–128 Jakobs, Peter H.F., Die frühchristlichen ambone Griechenlands (Bonn, 1987) James, Liz (ed.), Women, men and eunuchs: gender in Byzantium (London and New York, 1997) James, Liz, ‘Introduction: women’s studies, gender studies, Byzantine studies’, in Women, men and eunuchs: gender in Byzantium, ed. Liz James (London and New York, 1997), xi–xxiv Jarry, J., ‘L’ambon dans la liturgie primitive de l’église’, Syria, 40 (1963), 147–162 Johnson, Matthew, Archaeological Theory: An introduction (Malden, Oxford and Carlton, 2004) Joyner, Louise, ‘Searching for the Holy Grail: Late Roman ceramic analysis in the Levant’, in LRCW I Late Roman coarse wares, cooking wares and amphorae in the Mediterranean: archaeology and archaeometry, ed. J. Ma. Gurt i Esparraguera, J. Buxeda i Garrigós and M.A. Cau Ontiveros (BAR International Series, 1340, Oxford, 2005), 547–562 Jurković, Miljenko, ‘Foreword’, in Retrieving the record: A century of archaeology at Poreč (1847–1947), Ann Terry and Ffiona Gilmore Eaves (Studies in Early Christian and Medieval Art History and Archaeology, 1, Zagreb, 2001), 7–8 Kaegi, Walter E., Byzantium and the early Islamic conquests (Cambridge, 2000)

Bibliography

209

——, Heraclius, emperor of  Byzantium (Cambridge, 2003) Kalantzis, G., A comparison of  the architectural elements of  the fifth and sixth century Byzantine churches in the Negev and Constantinople (M.T.S. thesis, GarrettEvangelical Theological Seminary, 1994) Kalavrezou, Ioli, ‘Women in the visual record of  Byzantium’, in Byzantine women and their world, ed. Marsha Pomerantz (Cambridge, New Haven and London, 2003), 13–32 Kanellopoulos, Chrysanthos, ‘Architecture of  the complex’, in The Petra Church, ed. Patricia Maynor Bikai (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001), 153–191 Kanellopoulos, Chrysanthos, and Robert Schick, ‘Marble furnishings of  the apses and the bema, Phase V’, in The Petra Church, ed. Patricia Maynor Bikai (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001), 193–213 Kapitän, Gerhard, ‘The church wreck of f  Marzamemi’, Archaeology, 22.2 (1969), 122–133 ——, ‘Elementi architettonici per una basilica dal relitto navale del VI secolo di Marzamemi (Siracusa)’, Corso Di Cultura Sull’arte Ravennate E Bizantina. Ravenna, 9/18 Marzo 1980, 27 (1980), 71–136 Karlin-Hayter, Patricia, ‘Euthymios: Testament of  Euthymios for the monasteries of  Psamathia and Ta Agathou’, in Byzantine monastic foundation documents, ed. John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 25, Washington, D.C., 2000), 120–124 Kawe, Damian, ‘English summary’, Les églises d’époque Byzantine et Umayyad de la Jordanie V e–VIII e. Typologie architecturale et aménagements liturgiques (Bibliothèque De L’Antiquité Tardive, Publiée Par L’Association Pour L’Antiquité Tardive, 2, Turnhout, 2001), xi–xiv Kendall, Welbury, ‘Architectural report’, in Excavations at Nessana, ed. H. Dunscombe Colt (London, 1962), 25–47 Khatchatrian, A., Les baptistères paléochretiens (Paris, 1962) ——, Origine et typlogie des baptistères paléochretiens (Mulhouse, 1982) Kingsley, Sean A., Shipwreck archaeology of  the Holy Land: processes and parameters (Duckworth Debates in Archaeology series, London, 2004) Kirk, George Eden, and C. Bradford Welles, ‘The inscriptions’, in Excavations at Nessana, ed. H. Dunscombe Colt (London, 1962), 131–197 Kitzinger, Ernst, ‘The cult of images in the age before iconoclasm’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 8 (1954), 83–150 Kloner, A., ‘Maresha – 1987/1988’, Excavations and Surveys of  Israel, 7–8 (1988–89), 125 Kloner, Amos, ‘A Byzantine church at Maresha (Beit Govrin)’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 260–264

210 Bibliography Knight, Jeremy K., The end of  Antiquity: archaeology, society and religion a.d. 235–700 (Stroud, 2007) Kraeling, Carl H. (ed.), Gerasa: city of  the Decapolis. An account embodying the record of a joint excavation conducted by Yale University and the British School of  Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale University and the American Schools of Oriental Research (1930–1931, 1933–1934) (New Haven, 1938) Kraeling, C.H., ‘The history of  Gerasa’, in Gerasa: city of  the Decapolis. An account embodying the record of a joint excavation conducted by Yale University and the British School of  Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale University and the American Schools of  Oriental Research (1930–1931, 1933–1934), ed. Carl H. Kraeling (New Haven, 1938), 27–69 Kraeling, C.H., ‘The synagogue’, in The excavations at Dura-Europos. Final report, ed. A.R. Bellinger, F.E. Brown, A. Perkins and C.B. Welles (New Haven and London, 1956) Kraeling, Carl H., ‘Inferences from comparisons with other churches’, in A Byzantine church at Khirbat al-Karak, ed. Elizabeth B. Hauser (The University of  Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 85, Chicago, 1960), 22–25 Kraeling, Carl H., ‘The mosaic inscriptions’, in A Byzantine church at Khirbat alKarak, ed. Elizabeth B. Hauser (The University of  Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 85, Chicago, 1960), 53–55 Kraemer, C.J., Excavations at Nessana, III (Princeton, 1958) Krautheimer, Richard, Early Christian and Byzantine architecture, revised by Richard Krautheimer and Slobodan Ćurčić (New Haven and London, 1986) Laiou, Angeliki E., ‘The role of women in Byzantine society’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 31 (1981), 233–260 ——, ‘Addendum to the report on the role of women in Byzantine society’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 32 (1982), 98–103 LaMotta V., and M.B. Schif fer, ‘Behavioral Archaeology: Towards a new synthesis’, in Archaeological Theory Today, ed. I. Hodder (Oxford and Malden, 2002) Lassus, Jean, Inventaire archéologique de la région au nord-est de Hama (Institut français de Damas, Damascus, 1935) ——, Sanctuaires chrétiens de Syrie: essai sur le genèse, la forme et l’usage liturgique des édifices du culte chrétien, en Syrie, di IIIe siècle à la conquête musulmane (Institut Français D’Archéologie de Beyrouth Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique, 42, Paris, 1947) ——, The early Christian and Byzantine world (Landmarks of  the world’s art, London, 1966)

Bibliography

211

Lavan, Luke, ‘Religious space in Late Antiquity’, in Objects in context, objects in use: material spatiality in Late Antiquity, ed. Luke Lavan, Ellen Swift and Toon Putzeys (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 159–201 Lavan, Luke, Ellen Swift and Toon Putzeys, ‘Material spatiality in Late Antiquity: sources, approaches and field methods’, in Objects in context, objects in use: material spatiality in Late Antiquity, ed. Luke Lavan, Ellen Swift and Toon Putzeys (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 1–42 Leibovitch, J., ‘Dor’, ‘Alon [Newsletter] of  the Israel Department of  Antiquities, 3 (1951), 38–39 ——, ‘The reliquary column of  Dor’, Christian News from Israel, 5 (1953), 22–23 ——, ‘Dor’, ‘Alon [Newsletter] of  the Israel Department of  Antiquities, 5–6 (1957), 35 Limberis, Vasiliki, ‘The Council of  Ephesos: the demise of  the See of  Ephesos and the rise of  the cult of  the Theotokos’, in Ephesos metropolis of  Asia. An interdisciplinary approach to its archaeology, religion, and culture, ed. Helmut Koester (Harvard Theological Studies, 41, Cambridge, Mass., 1995), 321–340 Lowrie, Walter, Christian art and archaeology: being a handbook to the monuments of  the early Church (London, 1901) Lyle, D.P., Forensics for dummies (Hoboken, 2004) Lynn, Chris, ‘Some fragments of exotic porphyry found in Ireland’, The Journal of  Irish Archaeology, 2 (1984), 19–32 MacCoull, Leslie S.B., ‘Apa Abraham: Testament of  Apa Abraham, bishop of  Hermonthis, for the monastery of  St. Phoibammon near Thebes, Egypt’, in Byzantine monastic foundation documents, ed. John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 25, Washington, 2000), 51–58 MacDonald, William, Early Christian & Byzantine architecture (London, 1968) McLaughlin, Mary Martin, ‘Looking for Medieval women: an interim report on the project “Women’s religious life and communities, a.d. 500–1500”’, Medieval prosopography, 8 (1987), 61–91 McLeod, Frederick G., Theodore of  Mopsuestia (The Early Church Fathers, New York and London, 2009) McNamara, Jo Ann, John E. Halborg and E. Gordon Whatley (ed. and trans.), Sainted women of  the Dark Ages (Durham and London, 1992) Magen, Yitzhak, ‘The church of  Mary Theotokos on Mount Gerizim’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 333–341 ——, ‘The monastery of  St. Martyrius at Macale Adummim’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 170–196

212 Bibliography ——, and Rina Talgam, ‘The monastery of  Martyrius at Ma’ale Adummim (Khirbet el-Murassas) and its mosaics’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 91–152 ——, ‘A Byzantine church at Beit ‘Einûn (Beth ‘Anoth) in the Hebron hills’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. Giovanni Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni and Eugenio Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 275–286 Magness, Jodi, Jerusalem ceramic chronology circa 200–800 c.e. ( JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series, 9, Shef field, 1993) ——, The archaeology of  the early Islamic settlement in Palestine (Winona Lake, 2003) Mailis, Athanassios, The annexes at the Early Christian basilicas of  Greece (4th–6th c.): architecture and function (BAR Int. Series 2312, Oxford, 2011) Mainstone, Rowland J., Hagia Sophia: architecture, structure and liturgy of  Justinian’s Great Church, with 305 illustrations, 56 plans and drawings (London, 1988) Mâle, Emile, The early churches of  Rome, trans. David Buxton (London, 1960) Malki, Abdo J., A case study in computer applications to archaeology: Byzantine churches in Syria and Palestine (Ph.D. thesis, Uni. of  California, Los Angeles, 1992) Mango, Cyril, Byzantine architecture (New York, 1976) ——, Byzantium: the empire of  the New Rome (London, 1980) ——, ‘Constantine’s mausoleum and the translation of relics’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 83 (1990), 51–61 Margalit, Shlomo, ‘The North Church of  Shivta: the discovery of  the first church’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 119 (1987), 106–121 ——, ‘On the transformation of  the mono-apsidal churches with two pastophoria into tri-apsidal churches’, Liber Annuus – Studii Biblici Franciscanum, 39 (1989), 143–164 ——, ‘The bi-apsidal churches in Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Cyprus’, Liber Annuus – Studii Biblici Franciscanum, 40 (1990), 321–334 Mari, Fatma, ‘Typological and chemical analysis of  the glass’, in The Petra Church, ed. Patricia Maynor Bikai (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001), 377–383 Mathews, Thomas F., ‘An early Roman chancel arrangement and its liturgical functions’, Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana, 38 (1962), 73–95 ——, The early churches of  Constantinople: architecture and liturgy (University Park and London, 1971) Mayer, Wendy, and Pauline Allen, John Chrysostom (The Early Church Fathers, New York and London, 2000)

Bibliography

213

Megaw, A.H., ‘The basilica at Kourion, Cyprus’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 30 (1976), 345–374 ——, Kourion: excavations in the episcopal precinct (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 38, Washington, D.C., 2007) Menze, Volker L., Justinian and the making of  the Syrian Orthodox Church (Oxford Early Christian Studies, Oxford, 2008) Messiha, Hishmat, ‘Portable altars: Luxor treasure (1893)’, Bulletin de la Societe D’Archéologie Copte, 31 (1992), 129–134 Michaelidou-Nicolau, Ino, ‘The inscriptions’, Kourion: excavations in the episcopal precinct (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 38, Washington, D.C., 2007), 367–392 Michel, Anne, Les églises d’époque Byzantine et Umayyad de la Jordanie V e–VIII e. Typologie architecturale et aménagements liturgiques (Bibliothèque De L’Antiquité Tardive, Publiée Par L’Association Pour L’Antiquité Tardive, 2, Turnhout, 2001) Michel, Vincent, ‘Furniture, fixtures, and fittings in churches: archaeological evidence from Palestine (4th–8th c.) and the role of  the diakonikon’, in Objects in context, objects in use: material spatiality in Late Antiquity, ed. Luke Lavan, Ellen Swift and Toon Putzeys (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 581–606 Migne, J.-P. (ed.), Patrologiae Cursus, series Graeca (Paris, 1857) Miller, Timothy (trans.), ‘Theodore Studites: testament of  Theodore the Studite for the monastery of  St. John Stoudios in Constantinople’, in Byzantine monastic foundation documents, ed. John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 25, Washington, D.C., 2000), 67–83 ——, ‘Stoudios: rule of  the monastery of  St. John Stoudios in Constantinople’, in Byzantine monastic foundation documents, ed. John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 25, Washington, D.C., 2000), 84–119 Milligan, S.F., ‘Ancient ecclesiastical bells in Ulster’, The Journal of  the Royal Society of  Antiquaries of  Ireland, 33 (1903), 46–57 Moorhouse, Stephen, ‘Pottery and glass in the medieval monastery’, in Advances in monastic archaeology, ed. Roberta Gilchrist and Harold Mytum (BAR, British series, 227, Oxford, 1993), 127–148 Mulholland, Bernard J., Paraliturgical activities in the Early Byzantine basilical church (Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s University, Belfast, 2011) Müller-Wiener, W., Bildlexikon zur topograhie Istanbuls (Tübingen, 1977) Nakatani, Koji, ‘Lycia in the Byzantine period (fourth–tenth century): historical background’, in The survey of  Early Byzantine sites on Ölündeniz area (Lycia, Turkey): the first preliminary report, ed. Shigebumi Tsuji (Osaka, 1995), 42–50 Negev, A., ‘The churches of  the Central Negev – an archaeological survey’, Revue biblique, 81 (1974), 400–422

214 Bibliography ——, ‘Survey and trial excavations at Haluza (Elusa)’, Israel Exploration Journal, 26 (1976), 89–95 ——, ‘Christen und Christentum in der Wüste Negev’, Antike Welt, 13.2 (1982), 2–33 ——, ‘The cathedral of  Elusa and the new typology and chronology of  the Byzantine churches in the Negev’, Liber Annuus – Studii Biblici Franciscanum, 39 (1989), 129–142 Negev, Avraham, ‘The cathedral at Haluza (Elusa)’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 286–293 Netzer, Ehud, ‘The Byzantine churches of  Herodium’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 165–176 ——, ‘A Byzantine monastery at Nuseib ‘Uweishîra, west of  Jericho’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. Giovanni Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni and Eugenio Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 191–200 ——, Rivka Birger-Calderon and Ayala Feller, ‘The churches of Herodium’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 219–232 Nevo, Yehuda D., ‘The Arabic inscriptions’, in Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev. Volume 1: The Northern Church, ed. Roberta Maltese (QEDEM, 25, Jerusalem, 1988), 187–192 Ó Cróinín, D., ‘A seventh-century Irish computus from the circle of  Cummianus’, Proceedings of  the Royal Irish Academy, 82C (1982), 405–430 Ó Cróinín, Dáibhí, Early Medieval Ireland 400–1200 (Harlow, 1995) Odahl, Charles, ‘The Christian basilicas of  Constantinian Rome’, The Ancient World, 26.1 (1995), 3–28 O’Hea, Margaret, ‘Glass from the 1992–93 excavation’, in The Petra Church, ed. Patricia Maynor Bikai (American Center of  Oriental Research Publications, 3, Amman, 2001), 370–376 O’Keefe, Tadhg, Archaeology and the pan-European Romanesque (Duckworth Debates in Archaeology, London, 2007) Oren, Eliezer D., ‘A Christian settlement at Ostrakine in North Sinai’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 305–314 Ousterhout, Robert, ‘The holy space: architecture and the liturgy’, in Heaven on Earth: art and the Church in Byzantium, ed. Linda Safran (University Park, 1998), 81–120 ——, ‘Contextualizing the later churches of  Constantinople: suggested methodologies and a few examples’, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 54 (2000), 241–250 ——, Master builders of  Byzantium (Philadelphia, 2008)

Bibliography

215

Ovadiah, Asher, Corpus of  the Byzantine churches in the Holy Land, trans. Rose Kirson (Bonn, 1970) ——, ‘Early churches’, in The new encyclopaedia of archaeological excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa and J. Aviram ( Jerusalem, 1993), 305–309 Ovadiah, Ruth and Asher Ovadiah, Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine mosaic pavements in Israel (Bibliotheca Archaeologica, 6, ‘L’Erma’ Di Bretschneider, Rome, 1987), 26–30 Painter, Kenneth, ‘Introduction’, in ‘Churches built in ancient times’. Recent studies in Early Christian archaeology, ed. Kenneth Painter (Occasional Papers from The Society of  Antiquaries of  London, 16, Specialist Studies of  the Mediterranean, 1, London, 1994), xvii Pallas, Del D., Les Monuments Paléochrétiens de Grèce découverts de 1959 à 1973 (Pontificio Istitituto Di Archeologia Cristiana, Roma, 1977) Parker, Elizabeth C., ‘Architecture as liturgical setting’, in The liturgy of  the Medieval church, ed. Thomas J. Hef fernan and E. Ann Matter (Kalamazoo, 2001), 273–326 Parnicki-Pudelko, Stefan, ‘The Early Christian episcopal basilica in Novae’, Archaeologia Polona, 21–22 (1983), 241–270 Patrich, Joseph, ‘Architectural sculpture and stone objects’, in Excavations at Rehovotin-the-Negev. Volume 1: The Northern Church, ed. Roberta Maltese (QEDEM, Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 25, Jerusalem, 1988), 97–133 ——, ‘The glass vessels’, Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev. Volume 1: The Northern Church, ed. Roberta Maltese (QEDEM, Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 25, Jerusalem, 1988), 134–141 ——, ‘The transfer of gifts in the Early Christian churches of  Palestine: archaeological and literary evidence for the evolution of  the “Great Entrance”’, in Melanges of ferts a Pierre Maraval, ed. B. Caseau, J.-C. Cheynet and V. Deroch (Centre de recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Monographies 23, Paris 2006), 341–393 ——, and Yoram Tsafrir, ‘A Byzantine church complex at Horvat Beit Loya’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 265–272 Patterson, Helen, ‘The Early Medieval and Medieval pottery from Santa Cornelia’, in Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina and San Liberato, ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 120–136 Peacock, D.P.S., and D.F. Williams, Amphorae and the Roman economy: an introductory guide (New York and London, 1986) Pechat, Malka Ben, L’architecture baptismale de la Terre Sainte du VIIème siècle: étude historique, archéologique et liturgique (Ph.D. dissertation, Paris, 1985)

216 Bibliography ——, ‘The paleochristian baptismal fonts in the Holy Land: formal and functional study’, Liber Annuus – Studii Biblici Franciscanum, 39 (1989), 165–188 ——, ‘Baptism and monasticism in the Holy Land: archaeological and literary evidence (fourth to seventh centuries)’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: New discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 501–522 Peleg, Michal, ‘Domestic pottery’, in Excavations at Capernaum: volume 1, 1978–1982, ed. Rafi Grafman (Winona Lake, 1989), 31–113 Piccirillo, Michele, ‘The churches on Mount Nebo. New discoveries’, in Mount Nebo: new archaeological excavations 1967–1997, ed. Michele Piccirillo and Eugenio Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 27, Jerusalem, 1998), 221–263 ——, ‘The architecture and liturgy of  the Early Church’, in Cradle of  Christianity, ed. Yael Israeli and David Mevorah ( Jerusalem, 2000), 51–113 Pinter, Harold, ‘Introduction’, in Harold Pinter plays, 1. The birthday party, The room, The dumb waiter, A slight ache, The hothouse, A night out, The black and white, The examination (London, 1991), ix–x Pitts, Mike, ‘The rustle of  the Guardian at lunchtime’, British Archaeology ( January/ February 2011), 66 Politis, Konstantinos D., ‘Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata’, American Journal of  Archaeology, 97 (1993), 507–508 Pomerantz, Marsha (ed.), Byzantine women and their world (Cambridge, New Haven and London, 2003) Potter, T.W., and A.C. King, Excavation at the Mola di Monte Gelato (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 11, London, 1997) Poulter, Andrew (ed.), Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Roman, Late Roman, and Early Byzantine city. Excavations 1985–1992 ( Journal of  Roman Studies Monograph, 8, London, 1995) Poulter, A.G. (ed.), Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Roman, Late Roman, and Early Byzantine city. The pottery and glass (London, 1999) ——, ‘The excavations and the social and economic context’, in Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Roman to Early Byzantine city. The pottery and glass, ed. A.G. Poulter (London, 1999), 1–53 ——, ‘The Roman to Byzantine transition in the Balkans: preliminary results on Nicopolis and its hinterland’, Journal of  Roman Archaeology, 13 (2000), 347–358 ——, (ed.), Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Late Roman and Early Byzantine city. The finds and biological remains (Oakville and London, 2007)

Bibliography

217

——, ‘Interpreting finds in context: Nicopolis and Dichin revisited’, in Objects in context, objects in use: material spatiality in Late Antiquity, ed. Luke Lavan, Ellen Swift and Toon Putzeys (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 685–705 Prausnitz, M.W., Excavations at Shavei Zion: the Early Christian church. Report of  the excavations carried out by the Israel Department of  Antiquities and Museums (in cooperation with the Hebrew University of  Jerusalem) (Centro per le Antichità e la Storia dell’Arte del Vicino Oriente, Monografie di Archaeologia e d’Arte, 2, Rome, 1967) ——, ‘The excavations’, in Excavations at Shavei Zion: the Early Christian church. Report of  the excavations carried out by the Israel Department of  Antiquities and Museums (in cooperation with the Hebrew University of  Jerusalem) (Centro per le Antichità e la Storia dell’Arte del Vicino Oriente, Monografie di Archaeologia e d’Arte, 2, Rome, 1967), 15–38 Ramsay, William M., and Gertrude L. Bell, The thousand and one churches (London, 1909) ——, The thousand and one churches, ed. Robert G. Ousterhout and Mark P.C. Jackson (Philadelphia, 2008) Rast, Walter, Through the ages in Palestinian archaeology: an introductory handbook (Harrisburg, 1992) Reece, R., Coinage in Roman Britain (London, 1987) Renfrew, Colin, ‘The archaeology of religion’, in The ancient mind: elements of cognitive archaeology, ed. Colin Renfrew and Ezra B.W. Zubrow (Cambridge, 1994), 47–54 ——, and Paul Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice (London, 2000) Reynolds, Joyce, ‘The inscriptions’, in Three south Etrurian churches: Santa Cornelia, Santa Rufina and San Liberato, ed. Neil Christie (Archaeological Monographs of  the British School at Rome, 4, London, 1991), 137–152 Ribak, Eliya, Religious communities in Byzantine Palestina. The relationship between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, a.d. 400–700 (BAR, Int. Ser., 1646, Oxford, 2007) Roberts, Charlotte, and Keith Manchester, The archaeology of disease (Stroud, 2001) Roberts, A., ‘Worked bone’, in Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Late Roman and Early Byzantine city. The finds and biological remains, ed. A.G. Poulter (Oakville and London, 2007) Romano, John F., Ritual and society in Early Medieval Rome (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., April 2007) Rosenthal-Heginbottom, Renate, ‘The pottery’, in Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev. Volume 1: The Northern Church, ed. Roberta Maltese (QEDEM, Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 25, Jerusalem, 1988), 78–96 Roskams, Steve, Excavation (Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology, Cambridge, 2001)

218 Bibliography Ruggieri, Vincenzo, Byzantine religious architecture (582–867): its history and structural elements (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 23, Rome, 1991) Saller, Sylvester J., The memorial of  Moses on Mount Nebo (Publications of  the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 1, Jerusalem, 1941) Schif fer, Michael Brian, Cultural formation processes of  the archaeological record: applications at the Joint Site, east-central Arizona (Ph.D. dissertation, University of  Arizona, Ann Arbor, 1973) ——, ‘Behavioral chain analysis: activities, organisation, and the use of space’, Chapters in the prehistory of  Eastern Arizona, IV, Fieldiana: Anthropology, 65 (Chicago, 1975), 103–119 ——, Behavioral Archeology (Studies in Archeology, New York, San Francisco and London, 1976) ——, and Michael Brian, ‘Towards a unified science of  the cultural past’, Research Archaeology, New York, San Francisco and London, 1977), 13–40 ——, Behavioral archaeology: first principles, ed. Michael Brian Schif fer (Foundations of  Archaeological Inquiry, Salt Lake City, 1995) ——, Archaeological context and systemic context’, in Behavioral archaeology: first principles, ed. Michael Brian Schif fer (Foundations of  Archaeological Enquiry, Salt Lake City, 1995), 25–34 ——, ‘Archaeology as behavioral science’, in Behavioral archaeology: first principles, ed. Michael Brian Schif fer (Foundations of  Archaeological Enquiry, Salt Lake City, 1995), 46–54 ——, ‘Behavioral chain analysis: activities, organisation, and the use of space’, in Behavioral archaeology: first principles, ed. Michael Brian Schif fer (Foundations of  Archaeological Enquiry, Salt Lake City, 1995), 55–66 ——, ‘Toward the identification of  formation processes’, in Behavioral archaeology: first principles, ed. Michael Brian Schif fer (Foundations of  Archaeological Enquiry, Salt Lake City, 1995), 171–195 ——, ‘Is there a “Pompeii premise” in archaeology?’, in Behavioral archaeology: first principles, ed. Michael Brian Schif fer (Foundations of  Archaeological Enquiry, Salt Lake City, 1995), 201–218 ——, The material life of  human beings: artifacts, behavior, and communication (London and New York, 1999) Schneider, Alfons M., The Church of  the Multiplying of  the Loaves and Fishes at Tabgha on the lake of  Gennesaret and its mosaics, ed. A.A. Gordon and trans. Ernest Graf (Paderborn, Zurich and London, 1937) ——, ‘Südjudäische kirchen’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 61 (1938), 96–108

Bibliography

219

School of  Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast, Excavation manual, 5 (Belfast, June 2001) Schulenburg, Jane Tibbetts, Forgetful of  their sex: female sanctity and society, ca. 500– 1100 (Chicago and London, 1998) Schulz, Hans-Joachim, The Byzantine liturgy: symbolic structure and faith expression, trans. Mathew J. O’Connell (New York, 1986) Di Segni, Leah, ‘The monastery of  Martyrius at Ma’ale Adummim (Khirbet el-Murassas): the inscriptions’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. Giovanni Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni and Eugenio Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 153–164 ——, ‘The Greek inscriptions in the Northern and Eastern Churches at Herodium’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 177–190 ——, ‘Nuseib ‘Uweishîra: the inscription’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: new discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. Giovanni Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni and Eugenio Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 201–204 ——, ‘Horvath Hesheq: The inscriptions’, in Christian archaeology in the Holy Land: New discoveries. Essays in honour of  Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36, Jerusalem, 1990), 379–390 ——, ‘The inscriptions at Khirbet el-Beiyûdât’, Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 164–169 ——, ‘The Greek inscriptions at Horvat Hesheq’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir (Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, 1993), 66–70 ——, ‘The Greek inscriptions’, in Mount Nebo: new archaeological excavations 1967–1997, ed. Michele Piccirillo and Eugenio Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 27, Jerusalem, 1998), 425–467 ——, ‘The inscriptions’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (Qedem. Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999), 97–106 ——, ‘A Greek inscription in the church at Horvat Hanot’, in One land – many cultures. Archaeological studies in honour of  Stanislao Lof freda OFM, ed. G. Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni and L. Daniel Chrupcała (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 41, Jerusalem, 2003), 273–276

220 Bibliography Sharabani, Marcia, ‘Coins’, in The excavations of  Kursi – Gergesa, ed. Vassilios Tzaferis (‘Atiqot, 16, Jerusalem, 1983), 39–40 Shenhav, Eli, ‘Horvat Hanot. A Byzantine tradition of  Goliath’s burial place’, in One land – many cultures. Archaeological studies in honour of  Stanislao Lof freda OFM, ed. G. Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni and L. Daniel Chrupcała (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 41, Jerusalem, 2003), 269–272 Shepherd, J.D., ‘The glass’, in Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Roman, Late Roman, and Early Byzantine city. The pottery and glass, ed. A.G. Poulter (London, 1999), 297–378 Shepherd, Massey H., ‘The formation and inf luence of  the Antiochene liturgy’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 15 (1961), 23–44 Simon, M., La civilisation de l’Antiquité et le Christianisme (Paris, 1972) Smith, Robert Houston and Leslie Preston Day, Pella of  the Decapolis, 2. Final report on the College of  Wooster excavations in Area IX, the civic complex, 1979–1985 (The College of  Wooster, 1989) Snively, Carolyn S., ‘Invisible in the community? The evidence for early women’s monasticism in the southern Balkan Peninsula’, in Shaping community: the art and archaeology of monasticism. Papers from a symposium held at the Frederick R. Weisman Museum, University of  Minnesota, March 10–12, 2000, ed. Sheila McNally (BAR, Int. Ser., 941, Oxford, 2001), 57–66 Sodini, Jean-Pierre, ‘La contribution de l’archéologie à la connaissance du monde byzantin (IVe–VIIe siècles)’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 47 (1993), 139–184 ——, and K. Kolokotsas, Aliki, II: la basilique double (École Français D’Athènes, Études Thasiennes, 10, Paris, 1984) Solovey, Michael, The Byzantine Divine Liturgy. History and commentary, trans. Demetrius Emil Wysochansky (Washington, D.C., 1970) Soteriou, G., ‘E prothesis kai tò diakonikon en te arhaia ekklesia’, Theologia, Periodon B, vol. A (1941), 76–100 Stern, Ephraim, Dor: ruler of  the seas. Nineteen years of excavations at the IsraelitePhoenician harbor town on the Carmel coast ( Jerusalem, 2000), 22–23 Stinespring, W.F., ‘The history of excavation at Jerash’, in Gerasa: city of  the Decapolis. An account embodying the record of a joint excavation conducted by Yale University and the British School of  Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale University and the American Schools of  Oriental Research (1930–1931, 1933–1934), ed. Carl H. Kraeling (New Haven, 1938), 1–10 Stričević, D., Bakonikon i protesis u ranohriš’anskim crkvama (Starinar, 1958–59), 59–66 Strange, P., ‘The geophysical programme’, in Nicopolis ad Istrum: a Roman, Late Roman, and Early Byzantine city. Excavations 1985–1992, ed. Andrew Poulter ( Journal of  Roman Studies Monograph, 8, London, 1995), 259–267

Bibliography

221

Striker, Cecil L., and Y. Doğan Kuban (ed.), Kalenderhane in Istanbul. The buildings, their history, architecture and decoration. Final reports on the archaeological exploration and restoration at Kalenderhane Camii 1966–1978 (Mainz am Rhein, 1997) Syon, D., ‘A church from the Early Islamic Period’, in One land – many cultures. Archaeological studies in honour of Stanislao Lof freda OFM, ed. G. Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni and L. Daniel Chrupcała (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 41, Jerusalem, 2003), 75–82 Al Syriany, S., Guide to Ancient Coptic Churches & Monasteries in Upper Egypt (Cairo, 1990) Taft, Robert, ‘The liturgy of  the Great Church: an initial synthesis of structure and interpretation on the eve of iconoclasm’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 34 & 35 (1980– 1981), 45–75 ——, ‘Quaestiones disputatae: the skeuophylakion of  Hagia Sophia and the entrances of  the liturgy revisited – part I’, Oriens Christianus, 81 (1997), 1–35 ——, ‘Quaestiones disputatae: the skeuophylakion of  Hagia Sophia and the entrances of  the liturgy revisited – part II’, Oriens Christianus, 82 (1998), 53–87 ——, ‘Women at church in Byzantium: where, when – and why?’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 52 (1998), 27–87 ——, The Great Entrance: a history of  the transfer of gifts and other pre-anaphoral rites of  the liturgy of  St. John Chrysostom (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 200, Rome, 2004) Talbot, Alice-Mary, ‘Women’, in The Byzantines, ed. Guglielmo Cavallo (Chicago, 1997), 117–143 ——, ‘Women’s space in Byzantine monasteries’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 52 (1998), 113–127 Talbot, C.H. (trans.), ‘Huneberc of  Heidenheim: the hodoeporicon of  Saint Willibald’, in Soldiers of  Christ: saints and saints’ lives from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. Thomas F.X. Noble and Thomas Head (University Park, PA, and London, 1995), 141–164 —— (trans.), ‘The life of saint Leoba’, in Soldiers of  Christ: saints and saints’ lives from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. Thomas F.X. Noble and Thomas Head (University Park, PA, and London, 1995), 255–277 Talgam, Rina, ‘The mosaic pavements’, in The early Byzantine monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean desert: the excavations in 1981–1987, ed. Sue Gorodetsky (QEDEM, Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 38, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 1999), 107–118 Tchalenko, Georges, Villages antiques de la Syrie du Nord, le massif du Bélus à l’époque romaine (Paris, 1953–1958)

222 Bibliography Terry, Ann, ‘The sculpture at the Cathedral of  Eufrasius in Poreč’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 42 (1988), 13–64 ——, ‘The chancel panels in the crypt of  San Marco in Venice’, Römische Historische Mitteilungen, 30 (1988), 41–51 Terry, Ann, and Ffiona Gilmore Eaves, Retrieving the record: A century of archaeology at Poreč (1847–1947) (Studies in Early Christian and Medieval Art History and Archaeology, 1, Zagreb, 2001) Teteriatnikov, Natalia B., The liturgical planning of  Byzantine churches in Cappadocia (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 252, Rome, 1996) Thomas, John, and Angela Constantinides Hero (ed.), Byzantine monastic foundation documents. A complete translation of  the surviving founders’ typika and testaments (Washington, 2000) Trigger, Bruce G., A History of  Archaeological Thought (Cambridge, New York, Port Melbourne, Madrid and Cape Town, 2005) Tsafrir, Yoram, Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev. Volume 1: The Northern Church, ed. Roberta Maltese (QEDEM, Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 25, Jerusalem, 1988) ——, ‘An introduction to Rehovot-in-the-Negev’, in Excavations at Rehovot-inthe-Negev. Volume 1: The Northern Church, ed. Roberta Maltese (QEDEM, Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 25, Jerusalem, 1988), 1–16 ——, ‘The Northern Church’, in Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev. Volume 1: The Northern Church, ed. Roberta Maltese (QEDEM, Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 25, Jerusalem, 1988), 22–77 ——, ‘The Greek inscriptions’, in Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev. Volume 1: The Northern Church, ed. Roberta Maltese (QEDEM, Monographs of  the Institute of  Archaeology, 25, Jerusalem, 1988), 154–186 ——, ‘The development of ecclesiastical architecture in Palestine’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir (Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, 1993), 1–16 ——, ‘The Early Byzantine town of  Rehovot-in-the-Negev and its churches’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir (Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, 1993), 294–302 Tsafrir, Yoram, and Yizhar Hirschfeld, ‘The church and mosaics at Horvat Berachot, Israel; with an Appendix by Rina and Joseph Drory’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 33 (1979), 291–326 ——, ‘The Byzantine church at Horvat Berachot’, in Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 207–218 Tsuji, Shigebumi (ed.), The survey of  Early Byzantine sites on Ölündeniz area (Lycia, Turkey): the first preliminary report (Osaka, 1995)

Bibliography

223

——, ‘General description of archaeological sites recently surveyed near Ölüdeniz (Fethiye, Muğla)’, in The survey of  Early Byzantine sites on Ölündeniz area (Lycia, Turkey): the first preliminary report, ed. Shigebumi Tsuji (Osaka, 1995), 1–22 Tzaferis, Vassilios, The excavations of  Kursi – Gergesa (‘Atiqot, 16, Jerusalem, 1983) ——, ‘The Greek inscriptions from the Early Christian church at ‘Evron’, Eretz Israel, 19 (1987), 36–53 ——, ‘The Early Christian monastery at Kursi’, Ancient churches revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, 1993), 77–79 ——, ‘The Greek inscriptions from the church at Khirbet el-Shubeika’, in One land – many cultures. Archaeological studies in honour of  Stanislao Lof freda OFM, ed. G. Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni and L. Daniel Chrupcała (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 41, Jerusalem, 2003), 83–86 Usick, Patricia, Adventures in Egypt and Nubia: the travels of  William John Bankes (1786–1855) (London, 2002) Waagé, F.O., Antioch, IV (Princeton, 1948) Walker, Alicia, ‘A space “rich in blessing”’, in Byzantine women and their world, ed. Marsha Pomerantz (Cambridge, MA, New Haven and London, 2003), 161–213 Wallace, Sue-Anne, ‘Liturgical planning in some Cappadocian churches: a re-evaluation following recent excavations in Central Anatolia’, Mediterranean Archaeology, 3 (1990), 27–38 Walter, Christopher, ‘The origins of  the cult of  Saint George’, Revue des Études Byzantines, 53 (1995), 295–326 Welles, C.B., ‘The inscriptions’, in Gerasa: city of  the Decapolis. An account embodying the record of a joint excavation conducted by Yale University and the British School of  Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale University and the American Schools of  Oriental Research (1930–1931, 1933–1934), ed. Carl H. Kraeling (New Haven, 1938), 353–495 White, Tim D., and Pieter A. Folkens, The human bone manual (London, 2005) Xydis, Stephen G., ‘The chancel barrier, solea, and ambo of  Hagia Sophia’, Art Bulletin, 29 (1947), 1–24

Index

Adams, William Y.  21 African Red Slip Ware (ARSW)  115, 129 agape  8, 115, 118, 120, 128, 182, 183 Ajnādayn, battle of  27 altar table  2, 25, 62, 81, 85, 95, 96, 98, 99, 144, 151, 181 legs of  51, 54, 58, 70, 71, 91, 96, 126, 178 side  58, 59, 70, 125 silver 82 altaria  4, 125 ambo  50, 53, 54, 58, 59, 62, 63, 69, 70, 97, 98, 179, 180, 181 amphorae  2, 87, 111, 112, 118, 123, 124, 125, 126, 177, 181, 182, 183 bag jar  29, 112, 113, 123, 126, 129 Class 47  112 East Mediterranean Keay IIIb  112 Gaza  112, 113 Greyware  112, 113, 128, 129 amulae (singular ama)  4, 125 Anasazi, Native American  22 Anthony of  Novgorod  144, 145 Apostolical Constitutions 85–86 apse  25, 26 Ashkelon (chapel), Israel  101 atrium 52 Avdat (church), Israel  65 Babić, Gordana  88 Bahn, Paul  152 Ba’labakk, agreement of  27 baptistery  53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 70, 85 baptismal font  54

basin 2 Beit ‘Einûn, Israel  156 bema 25 Berman, Constance  147 Beth Yareh (church), Israel  101 Beyazit Basilica A, Constantinople  63 Bishop Genesius (church), Gerasa, Jordan  89, 98, 181 bishop’s seat  50, 59, 70, 91 Boniface, St  151 bowls  87, 111, 114, 123, 124, 125, 126, 177, 181, 182 Brightman, F.E.  116 Butler, Howard Crosby  69 Byzantine rite  6, 46, 69, 90, 94, 121 see also Entrance of  the Mysteries Cameron, Averil  140 Cathedral Church, Gerasa, Jordan  88, 89, 157 Central Church, Herodium, Israel  54 chalice  6, 116, 144 Chalkis/Qinnasrīn agreement  27 chancel barrier or screen  3, 25, 53, 56, 85, 95, 112, 126, 127, 178, 182 chancel screen posts  25, 51, 54, 58, 70, 71, 91, 95, 96, 126, 178 Chitty, Derwas  8 Chorikios  144, 154 Christ at Paneas, statue of  99, 102, 181 Chrysostom, John  142, 145 church sanctuary  3, 25, 82, 91, 179 Church of  the Apostles, Constantinople 119

226 Index ciboria columns  91, 96 Clement of  Rome  82, 93, 142 Cogitosus  148, 149 Colt, H. Dunscombe  28, 54 Confessio 87 Constantelos, Demetrios J.  118 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremoniis  8, 143, 144 Constantinopolitan church plan  10, 45, 46, 49–53, 59, 62, 69, 86, 90, 93, 96, 102, 122, 178, 179, 181 cooking pots  2, 109, 114, 123, 124, 126, 128, 177, 182, 183 lids 114 Cormack, Robin  140 Council of  Carthage, 14th canon  60, 70 Council at Nicaea (7th Ecumenical)  60 Crowfoot, J.W.  5, 7, 19, 26, 32, 46, 52, 62, 79, 82, 85, 88, 89, 100, 101, 102, 120, 180 Cypriot Red Slip Ware (CRSW)  115, 129 Day, Florence  29 Delougaz, Pinhas  21 Descoeudres, Georges  85 diaconia  5, 51, 53, 93 see also diakonikon, pastophory, sacristy and skeuophylakion diakonikon (plural diakonika)  3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 19, 32, 46, 49, 51, 53, 58, 62, 65, 79, 81, 82, 84, 89, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 103, 109, 112, 120, 121, 127, 177, 178, 180, 182, 183, 184 see also diaconia, pastophory, sacristy and skeuophylakion dining hall see under refectory Eastern Church, Herodium, Israel  54 Eaverly, Mary Ann  160

Entrance of  the Mysteries  6 see also Byzantine rite Eucharist  6, 7, 19, 49, 81, 87, 88, 96, 102, 118, 128, 181 Euthymius, St, coenobium of  8, 82, 120 ‘Evron (church), Israel  57, 95, 157, 180 Fiema, Zbigniew T.  60, 111 Fine Byzantine Ware bowls  2 f labella  6, 116 f lasks  111, 113, 125, 126, 177, 181, 182, 183 fons  4, 125 Gaza  27, 128 Gerasa, Jordan  5, 47, 52, 79, 88, 89, 110 Gilchrist, Roberta  140, 151, 152 Glodesind 150 Hagia Eirēnē, Constantinople  90 Hagia Sophia, Constantinople  6, 51, 52, 53, 88, 90, 93, 94, 118, 119, 127, 145 Hagia Theotokos in Blachernai, Constantinople 90 Hagios Theodōros of  Sphōrakios, Constantinople 90 Haines, Richard C.  21 Haluza cathedral, Israel  59, 65, 85 Hidatsa, Native American  140 Hizmi, Hananya  98 Holy Zion Church, Israel  101 Hormisdas, Pope  66 Horvat Beit Loya, Israel  54, 55, 98, 156 Horvat Berachot, Israel  110, 112, 114, 123 Horvat Hesheq, Israel  59, 63, 65, 110, 125, 157 Insoll, Timothy  15 Islamic Glazed Ware  29 Ivison, Eric A.  88, 89

Index James, Liz  160 John II, Pope (formerly presbyter Mercurius)  63, 66, 70, 180 jugs  111, 113, 123, 124, 125, 126, 177, 181, 182, 183 Kaegi, Walter  27 Khirbat al-Karak, Israel  29, 58, 59, 62, 64, 95, 101, 110, 112, 115, 124, 125, 128, 155, 157, 180 Khirbet ed-Deir, Israel  2, 31, 54, 110, 114, 121, 123, 124, 156, 177 Khirbet Eirav, Israel  65 Khirbet el-Beiyûdât, Israel  54, 98, 99, 153, 154, 157, 158, 181 Khirbet el-Shubeika, Israel  158 Khirbet el-Waziah, Israel  110 Kingsley, Sean  29 Kissufim (church), Israel  154, 158 Kitzinger, Ernst  99, 102, 181 Kourion (church), Cyprus  101 Krautheimer, Richard  7, 16, 47, 79, 81, 127, 142 Kursi (church), Israel  54, 55, 97, 110, 112, 114, 123, 124, 153, 154, 156, 158, 180 Laiou, Angeliki  140 LaMotta, Vince  22 Large Basilica, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgaria  54, 98, 110, 112, 114, 115, 123, 128, 158 Lassus, Jean  85 Late Roman Red Ware bowls and lids  2 Lavan, Luke  15 Levant  9, 10, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 43, 48, 67, 69, 70, 120, 128, 177 Limberis, Vasiliki  146 Liturgy of  St. John Chrysostom  118 Leubevera, abbess  119 Leoba, St  150, 151

227 Magness, Jodi  28 Manchester, Keith  152 Mango, Cyril  1, 14, 55, 120, 140 Margalit, Shlomo  62, 65 Marzamemi ‘church’ ship wreck  57, 63, 70 Mathews, Thomas F.  4, 6, 7, 8, 16, 31, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 56, 62, 69, 86, 87, 89, 93, 94, 96, 97, 113, 119, 127, 139, 142, 143, 146, 154, 178, 179, 181 matroneum  87, 88 Maximus, protégé of  Pseudo-Denis  89 McLaughlin, Mary Martin  148 ‘Mefjer’ ware  29 Mola di Monte Gelato (church), Italy  57, 59, 88, 153, 154 monastery Beth-Shan, Israel  150 Martyrius, Israel  55, 110, 154, 157 Monophysite  55, 66, 67, 69, 97, 144, 145 Monophysites  62, 65 Moorhouse, Stephen  20 Mount Nebo (church), Jordan  64, 101, 180 Mu’awiyah 28 Nahariya (church), Israel  30, 59, 110, 113, 114, 118, 124, 125, 157 narthex  52, 54, 112, 123, 124, 125, 144, 153, 154, 156, 157, 162 Nessana, Israel  28, 30, 54 Nestorius 145 North Church or SS. Sergius & Bacchus, Nessana, Israel  55, 64, 155, 156, 157 North Church, Rehovot-in-the-Negev, Israel  2, 31, 54, 59, 63, 65, 95, 98, 110, 112, 114, 115, 121, 124, 125, 128, 129, 155, 157, 177 Novae (church), Bulgaria  63, 66, 180

228 Index of fertory tables  60 Old Church, Old Dongola, Sudan  31, 54 Ordo Romanus I  4, 7, 48, 56, 69, 87, 94, 113, 118, 121, 125, 143, 181 Ostrakine (church), Israel  30, 54, 85, 110, 123, 155 Ousterhout, Robert  100, 101 Palestinian (Early Islamic) bag-shaped (LR5) amphorae  29 paraliturgical activity  49 pastophory  7, 85 see also diaconia, diakonikon, sacristy and skeuophylakion patens 6 Patrich, Joseph  101 Pella of  the Decapolis, Jordan  59, 64, 65, 67, 110, 114 Petra Church, Jordan  59, 60, 63, 65, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 125, 128, 159 Phocaean Red Slip Ware (PRSW)  115, 129 pi (Π)-shaped sanctuary/chancel barrier 44, 46, 47, 49, 53, 65, 68, 69, 90, 93, 126, 178, 179 plates  87, 111, 114, 123, 124, 125, 126, 177, 181, 182, 183 Pompeii 23 Poreč (church), Croatia  59, 63, 65, 66, 157 Procopius of  Caesarea  142 Procopius Church, Gerasa, Jordan  57, 89 Propylaea Church, Gerasa, Jordan  5, 51, 53, 93, 94, 95, 102, 180 prothesis, chapel  5, 89 rite of  3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 19, 49, 51, 55, 62, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 94, 95, 96, 102, 103, 118, 121, 126, 127, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184 Pseudo-Denis 97

Qal’at Sim’an, Syria  47, 56 Radegund, queen  119 refectory  2, 120, 177 relics/reliquaries  58, 59, 60, 70, 146, 150, 151, 153, 154 Renfrew, Colin  15, 152 Ribak, Eliya  101 Roberts, Charlotte  152 Roman church plan  10, 45, 48, 49, 56–64, 85, 86, 94, 95, 96, 102, 109, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 178, 180 Romano, John F.  4, 118, 125 Rusticula, abbess of  Arles  150 sacristy  5, 7, 8 see also diaconia, diakonikon, pastophory and skeuophylakion St. Clemente Church, Rome, Italy  62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 179, 180 St. John the Baptist, St. George, and SS. Cosmas & Damianus, Gerasa, Jordan 157 St. Polyeuktos Church, Saraçhane, Constantinople  46, 63 St. Stephen’s, Horvat Be’er-shemca, Israel 54 St. Theodore Church, Gerasa, Jordan  50, 51, 52, 89, 93, 94 SS. Cosmas & Damianus, Gerasa, Jordan 54 SS. Peter & Paul, Gerasa, Jordan  62, 89 San Marco, Venice, Italy  63 Santa Cornelia, Italy  59, 64, 67 Schif fer, Michael Brian  22 Schulenburg, Jane Tibbetts  147 scif fus  4, 125 secretarium  48, 87, 88, 96 senatorium  87, 88 Shavei Zion (church), Israel  50, 51, 93, 110, 156, 159

229

Index north chapel  50, 51, 55, 56, 58, 59, 62, 65, 69, 70, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 102, 103, 112, 124, 126, 162, 179, 181 side chapel (also parekklesia)  25, 32, 51, 53, 55, 79, 81, 85, 88, 89, 91, 95, 99, 101, 103, 125, 127, 158, 180, 183, 184 south chapel  53, 54, 55, 56, 65, 70, 89, 90, 91, 93, 96, 97, 102, 103, 112, 123, 126, 162, 182 skeuophylakion  6, 7, 46, 51, 53, 81, 90, 93, 118, 144, 146 see also diaconia, diakonikon, pastophory and sacristy Small Basilica at Nicopolis ad Istrum, Bulgaria  55, 110, 112, 114, 115, 123, 124, 128, 159 Snively, Carolyn S.  148 Sodini, Jean-Pierre  101 Solovey, Michael  118, 145 South Church or St. Mary’s, Nessana, Israel  58, 62, 157

Synagogue Church, Gerasa, Jordan  50, 52, 93 synthronon  50, 54, 59, 70, 91, 179, 180 Syrian church plan  10, 45, 47, 49, 53–56, 59, 62, 64, 65, 67, 70, 85, 90, 94, 96, 97, 102, 109, 122, 126, 127, 128, 179, 180, 182 Syrian rite  47, 56, 69, 97, 116, 121 T-shaped sanctuary/chancel barrier  44, 48, 56, 57, 62, 65, 67, 69, 125, 126, 178, 179 Taft, Robert F.  86, 90, 93, 94, 118, 127, 139, 143, 144, 145, 146, 154, 162 Talbot, C.H.  147 Testament of  Our Lord  5, 82, 89, 93, 142 Theodore of  Mopsuestia  97 Tsafrir, Yoram  16, 98 Umayyad  27, 28, 30, 110, 111, 112 Wimbourne, Britain  150

Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies Edited by Andrew Louth, Professor Emeritus of Patristic and Byzantine Studies, University of Durham. David Ricks, Professor of Modern Greek and Comparative Literature, King’s College London.

This series encompasses the religion, culture, history, and literary production of the Greek-speaking world and its neighbours from the fourth century AD to the present. It aims to provide a forum for original scholarly work in any of these fields, covering cultures as diverse as Late Antiquity, the Byzantine empire, the Venetian empire, the Christian communities under Ottoman rule, and the modern nation states of Greece and Cyprus. Submissions in English are welcomed in the form of monographs, annotated editions, or collections of papers.

Volume 1 Anthony Hirst, God and the Poetic Ego: The Appropriation of Biblical and Liturgical Language in the Poetry of Palamas, Sikelianos and Elytis. 425 pages. 2004. ISBN 3-03910-327-X Volume 2 Hieromonk Patapios and Archbishop Chrysostomos, Manna from Athos: The Issue of Frequent Communion on the Holy Mountain in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries. 187 pages. 2006. ISBN 3-03910-722-4

Volume 3 Liana Giannakopoulou, The Power of Pygmalion: Ancient Greek Sculpture in Modern Greek Poetry, 1860-1960. 340 pages. 2007. ISBN 978-3-03910-752-0 Volume 4 Irene Loulakaki-Moore, Seferis and Elytis as Translators. 392 pages. 2010. ISBN 978-3-03911-918-9 Volume 5 Maria Mandamadiotou, The Greek Orthodox Community of Mytilene: Between the Ottoman Empire and the Greek State, 1876–1912. 270 pages. 2013. ISBN 978-3-0343-0910-3 Volume 6 Eugenia Russell, St Demetrius of Thessalonica: Cult and Devotion in the Middle Ages. 213 pages. 2010. ISBN 978-3-0343-0181-7 Volume 7 Ivan Sokolov, The Church of Constantinople in the Nineteenth Century: An Essay in Historical Research. 1041 pages. 2013. ISBN 978-3-0343-0202-9 Volume 8 Forthcoming Volume 9 Bernard Mulholland, The Early Byzantine Christian Church: An Archaeological Re-assessment of Forty-Seven Early Byzantine Basilical Church Excavations Primarily in Israel and Jordan, and their Historical and Liturgical Context. 245 pages. 2014. ISBN 978-3-0343-1709-2 Volume 10 Maximilian Lau, Caterina Franchi and Morgan Di Rodi (eds), Landscapes of Power: Selected Papers from the XV Oxford University Byzantine Society International Graduate Conference. 323 pages. 2014. ISBN 978-3-0343-1751-1 Volume 11 Dimitrios Konstadakopulos, From Pax Ottomanica to Pax Europaea: The growth and decline of a Greek village’s micro-economy. 375 pages. 2014. ISBN 978-3-0343-1749-8